Should baby boys be circumcised?

Just because your son had a condition at the age of 14 does NOT mean that all babies should be subject to the horrific torture that routine infant circumcision entails. I am MORE than certain that your son was given adequate pain relief measures before, during, and after the surgery... something that innocent babies are NOT given. Not even close. Besides, I'm just speculating here,but I could venture to say that the condition your son had could have been eradicated in some other way without circumcision. The American medical community is still so pro-circ (motivated by money) that circumcision is suggested at the drop of a hat! Do girls get their labia removed with the first sign of a yeast infection? The answer to that is "NO". Our girls are protected by law from those types of uncessary and life altering surgeries.

I think few people consider it this way, however I definitely agree! As for the medical condition requiring it, whether there was another option is debatable for ages. However, few boys require that drastic a measure. And saying that all should be given a circ on the off chance that they will develop a problem is like saying all women should have a mastectomy to avoid breast cancer. Generalizations like that just do not hold up.

I'm sorry your son went through that; it must have been very scary. But proactive amputation of a healthy body part doesn't make a lot of sense. We don't remove breast buds at birth to prepare for potential masectomies, remove tonsils at birth, or even apendixes. The same rule should apply to foreskins.

Female mutilation is done so that women will not feel pleasure, and it is usually done when the female is a young girl. There is no comparison between female mutilation and male circumcision.

Male circumcision is done for either religious beliefs or for health benefits. Parents have the choice regarding their sons. My husband tells of a college friend who had to have circumcision while in college. After having seen what his friend endured, he said that he definitely wanted his sons to be circumcised. My ob/gyn also recommended circumcision. As a medic in the war, he said that he had performed circumcisions for men who were unable to keep the area clean and were suffering horrific infections. He said while this is just a particular scenario, the suffering these men endured from both the infections and the circumcision was enough for him to recommend circumcision. I had asked his opinion and he had been honest and said the decision was mine.

Most men don't have to worry about hygiene. They have showers available. If they have to go to war, they can decide then to cut. It seems silly for all infants to get it done just in case they are in a war and can't shower regularly.

Circumcision became popular in America because it was touted as a way to prevent masturbation. How is that different from circumcising women to reduce pleasure?

Adult circumcisions are actually less painful because they are done with appropriate anesthesia and pain killers for the after care, not to mention the fact that most adults do not wear diapers and therefore do not have urine pressed against the wound. Since the foreskin in an adult already retracts it is easy to make sure just the foreskin is being cut. In an infant the foreskin must be forcibly retracted, and then the doctor just hacks away, hopefully taking just foreskin.

lottapaws, you seem to be highly uneducation in the reasons why female genital mutilation is performed. Regarding your OB/GYN's comments: being a female, you should know that a yeast infection, while uncomfortable, is NOT a "horrific infection" and can be quickly and effectively treated with simple creams.... and a big P.S. The circumcision that babies face is FAR more "HORRIFIC" than the circumcision that those men had, and the proported "infections". Why don't you take a moment, skin your finger down to the bone with a scalpel with no pain medication..and just put some petroleum jelly on there for several days until it heals? You'd have a better idea as to how painful it is for a newborn to be stripped of a body part that is rightfully his.

Micstew, you made me shudder, I am sooo glad I don't remember! If we can let parents decide and/or make it a religious deal then female circumcision can be practiced by those that so desire. How about if a lesbian church pops up and they reqiure all male children have the penis removed to comply with their new mandate, after all it would safeguard all women if one happened to become a rapist. Justified!

"Female mutilation is done so that women will not feel pleasure, and it is usually done when the female is a young girl. There is no comparison between female mutilation and male circumcision."

Actually, there is. Circumciscion became popular in the early 20th century in America as a way to prevent masturbation. It is surgically parallel to type 1 and 2 FGM, which is the removal of part of the labia and/or the clitoral hood. It is performed in Africa for the same reasons Americans perform circumcision - improved appearance, religion, culture and "health benefits". Men will only like a trimmed woman, she needs to look like Mom, and it's so much cleaner! Listen or read the comments of those who defend FGM - you will find the comments to be identical to circumcision here.

From someone whose penis related experience is mainly with other people's of both varieties... let me say, circ'd penises are weird looking when you're accustomed to seeing unaltered ones - especially seeing the head exposed on a young boy. It's almost obscene. I don't really want to see that unless your penis is hard and we're about to be intimate. It's almost like a naked woman walking around with her labia pulled back. Sometimes they're deformed - somewhat bent, with too tight skin, and always scarred - a band around the middle, and often subtle fissures on the dried out head. While they function, they don't always function properly, at least sexually. I've met some with skin too tight to have proper play over the penis. I don't judge a man by his penis, but let's not pretend it isn't a significant body modification that, like tattoos and genital peircinings, some people may prefer, but ought be limited to those that choose to get them.

It is not cleaner, if you properly clean down there. That's like saying you'll have better dental hygiene if you pull all of your teeth.

It's not healthier either. The glans is a mucous membrane. The foreskin prevents it from drying out. What do you think is healthier? Chapped lips or lips that hold moisture?

As for it looking better -- maybe to you, but not to a lot of people. Plus, I know mine looks just like a circumscised one when I have an erection. The foreskin pulls back and you can't tell the difference unless you are inches away.

In that case, I definitely call it mutilation.

To me, circ'ed penises *are* weird looking and ugly. They look bald and dry and unnatural.

Circ'ed penises don't function properly. They don't perform the same sexually, the foreskin doesn't protect the glans, and the man becomes less sensitive. Ask men who have restored their foreskins - google it!

I am an intact ("uncircumcised", you might call it, but this gets things backwards) man, and I think circumcised penises look just awful. They make me cringe every time I get a glimpse. You have been brainwashed to think that a mutilated penis looks "normal" because it is routinely done. If everyone got their nose cut off at birth and just had holes in their face, we'd think that looked normal too! But if someone from a country where that is not done came to visit, they'd be grossed out.

Bottom line though is that there is no other body part routinely removed from babies. And the vast majority of the world does not remove this one either. As an intact man, I know that my sexual functioning would be impaired without my foreskin.

Well said, Jennifer. This should not be done to a child. Once the child is an adult, I think it is up to the individual to choose body modifications, such as pierced ears, nose rings, and circumscision.

But it should always be a personal choice; not something imposed, even by well-meaning parents. Mine was entirely by choice after much thought. I honor my parents for honoring me in that way.

Well said. Thank you for that comparison Jennifer. Many people are just so clueless that they can't even comprehend that it's the same surgery, whether for boys, OR for girls.

Last I checked boys weren't being circumsized with a piece of glass or a dirty knife or being sown shut to keep them virgins.

Um, yes they are. Google "circumcision initiation schools." In much of Africa, boys are circumcised with the same brutal methods as girls. Contrast to the Middle East, Indonesia, and other areas where girls are circumcised in medical facilities right next to their brothers.

Because the pain was too horrible for an adult to endure, you inflicted it on a helpless infant? Even after considering that adults get real pain relievers and infants might be offered... tylenol. Give me a minute while I try to wrap my head around that logic.

I agree, circumcision as an adult or older child is (reportedly) unbearably painful. Infants heal faster and more easily, and I've yet to meet a man who claims to be affected by the pain of being circumcised days after birth. My husband has talked about how bad he felt for the uncircumcised boys who were made fun of and berated in the locker room all growing up. As for teaching your boy to keep clean, have any of you met a 14 year old boy? It's a miracle if they hop in the shower more than a couple times a week! The smell one meets in the room of a teenage boy is illustration enough. Yes, girls are messy too, and if the process were in any way analogous this might be a different story. but...

It is absolutely ridiculous to equate this practice with female circumcision. In female circumcision the entire clitoris is removed, greatly reducing, even eliminating, sexual pleasure for the woman. The idea behind it is that if sex doesn't feel good then women won't shame themselves and their families by having sex. It is extremely disrespectful and belittling to the women who have gone through this agonizing process, which continues to affect them throughout their lives, to compare their genital mutilation to a process which removes skin with no real, significant purpose. Yes, yes, membrane, moisture, so on. No, men can still experience a full and satisfying sex life without a foreskin. And, judging by the number of women i know who are turned off by an uncircumcised penis, they're more likely to. So stop pretending that removing a foreskin is analogous to cutting off a girl's clitoris. It is disrespectful, insensitive, and ignorant.

I experienced no ridicule for not being circumcised... and although I'd consider myself to be a conservative and religious, I'm definitely not shy about my body.

Trust me, there are worse hygiene problems than not washing under your foreskin. And I don't know if you remember being a teenager or not (I do, since it was only a few years ago for me), but teenagers will find ANYTHING to make fun of you for. It doesn't matter if you're circumcised or not.

And for your information, circumcision does reduce the pleasure of sex for men (and women).

The foreskin is full of nerves and cutting it off does reduce sexual pleasure. That's why it's so painful to remove and that's why it IS akin to female genital mutilation. I know, because I had it done when I was five and it's one of my worst memories ever.

midlawyer, you are incorrect (as most pro-circ people are, I know this because I myself used to be on your side of the fence, that's right, I was pro-circ)in assuming that FGM is any worse than MGM (Male Genital Mutilation). In MGM, 20,000 nerve ending are removed, with the amount of skin equaling 15 sq. inches of an adult penis. In FGM, 5,000 nerve endings are removed. The part of the organ that is removed is EXACTLY equivalent to what is removed from our boys. The amount of skin removed from the prepuce (foreskin) of a female is "...the size of a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, the head of a needle... the size of a nail clipping." The clitoris is rarely removed (less than 15%) Are you sure that it is worse to do the exact same procedure to a girl than to a boy?

I was not circumcised as an infant but my father and cousins were, I always felt I should have been so had it done as an adult. The health issue seems marginal but clearly parental training should make all youngsters aware how important it is to keep this area very clean in any case. Appearance is a matter of debate and perhaps a foreskin protects the sensitivity of the glans a little but pro's and con's about that; personally I prefer it the way it now is. Unless for religious reasons, as it happens to us, surely we males are best suited to make this choice when we know enough to decide for ourselves. Pain is relative to each individual but in my case it was hardly the most painful experience by any means. A little soreness for a week and steering clear of sex for ten days was all it really meant. The removal of a grumbling appendix at nine years old was far more traumatic and uncomfortable.

I believe this is a personal decision. I am not sure how someone could say it is more/less sexually satisfying unless they were circumcised after being a sexually active adult, for comparison. Being circumcised myself, I have no problems being satisfied. My best friend is from Jamaica and is not circumcised. He talks about having an odor down there often and the need to clean with Q-tips regularly, getting into the folds. From his description, I would likely choose to be circumcised simply for cleanliness reasons. However, as I read these posts, perhaps allowing this as a voluntary procedure for adult males would be the best approach to this problem.

Patrick, if your friend is regularly talking about foul odors, maybe he should go get checked for a bacterial infection... The only odors that come from an intact penis are the same as those that come from a clean vagina... and shouldn't be foul smelling unless there's an STD present. Keep in mind, a circumcised penis has the same STD potential, but maybe without a foul smelling odor, one would be unaware that he's passing that on to his partner/partners. There's no reason to cut off a functioning body part simply because it gets dirty... if that were the case, we'd all be missing our lips, cheeks, and teeth. I'm glad that you realize that this is something that a grown adult should choose for himself if that is something he wants to do. :)

I was told one time by someone that the newborns never remember the pain...how ignorant..

I have to disagree here - I've seen circumcisions and most babies sleep right through it. They never even realize anything is being done and they never miss the little flap of skin after it's gone.

When babies are born, their nerves are not fully developed and so the brain does not register the pain from the circumcision in the same way that it does for adults.

I fully agree. I had mine done at age 23, by choice. I was easily able to maintain a high standard of hygene, but I chose the operation because the foreskin would not stay back while erect and interfered with my enjoyment of sex. Had that not been the case, I would have kept it, as it did not offer any other inconvenience.

It is my considered opinion that each male child should be allowed to make his own choice at an age when he can make an informed decision. I do not think it is right to do something irreversable to any child unless that child's life depends on it.

So Paul, by this logic, you believe that baby girls should have their labia removed so they don't have to clean themselves? To prevent yeast infection? They are already doing this to little girls in many parts of the world (contrary to popular belief, the clitoris is NOT removed in the most common types of female circumcision, in fact, less than 15%) so why is that considered barbaric when the exact same procedure, done for the exact same reasons right here in America is NOT considered barbaric?

It iis mutilation whether you are looking at it through rose colored glasses OR baby blue glasses....

I'm busy as can be yet I always find time to wash myself. What's wrong with you?

That is really funny. Try teaching an absent-minded 6-year-old to properly wash ANYTHING!

Well, would you teach your 6 year old girl to keep herself clean?

Well maybe we should perform genital mutilation on female infants too, because if a young boy isn't old enough to know how to clean himself, then obviously a young girl can't douche. And before you say, oh, girls start getting periods between 9 and 13... there are plenty of cases where six year olds have entered puberty.

And maybe, if you were a responsible parent, you would make sure he cleaned himself down there just like you make sure he brushes his teeth and washes behind his ears (you do do that, don't you?).

Anson's Mom,

My son is not circumcised and he is 9 years old. To this day he has never had an infection or problem. I taught him at an early age, probably starting around age 2 how to clean his penis during bath time, just like I taught him to wash his face. I have not cleaned him since his was around the age of 5. My husband and I have treated this as part of daily hygene, not something sexual or dirty.

If communication is present and hygene taught, the outcome will be positive. This is a matter of taking time to parent, not an absent-minded 6-year-old.

No woman should EVER douche! That's not a matter of cleanliness, and in fact douching causes serious problems! Douching removes the body of the ability to properly, naturally, cleanse itself and actually causes infections.

As far as circumcising goes, have any of you every seen it being done? The strap the baby to a table and just cut! No anesthesia is given. And afterward, the baby screams every time it urinates because it's peeing onto an open wound. It's totally barbaric to do this just because you think it looks better. In the case of religious beliefs I can understand why a parent may choose to get it done, but for most people in our society, there are not religious reasons why. And realistically, it's not done as much now, so it's not like when they get a little older that they are going to be the only boy in the lockeroom without it done.

I also have an intact son. He's eight and has never had a problem with keeping himself clean. I taught him to clean it just the same as I taught him how to brush his teeth, shampoo his hair, wipe his bottom, etc... Beyond the cosmetic reasons, in most cases there is no need for circumcision these days. I have a close family friend who had their son circumcised at birth, and because the doctor botched the procedure the boy has now had numerous corrective surgeries and is still not now, nor ever will be, "normal" down there. That was one of the reasons I chose not to have the procedure performed on my son. That said, it's a personal decision for each family to make for themselves. I just hope that everyone actually considers their reasoning and makes an informed decision, rather that doing it 'just because'.

Anson's Mom, my 5 year old has no problem keeping himself clean. Maybe you just have a low opinion of males and that attitude has transfered to your son?

I have an intact 2-year-old. We keep him clean and haven't had any issues. We're teaching him to clean all his nooks and crannies just like we taught his sister. After hearing how my nephew's circumcision ended up bleeding and infected (ouch), I'm glad we made the choice we did.

Interestingly, we had to tell the medical staff at the hospital SEVERAL times that we were opting out of the procedure and it still ended up in his chart. We ended up having them mark it in large, red letters on the file.

BK et al,

If your doctor doesn't use pain management for a newborn's circumcision, then I suggest finding a new doctor! A decade ago, very few doctors incorporated pain management into the circumcision procedure nor for the aftercare. However, pain management for circumcisions is taught in in at least 97% of residency programs that include circumcision in their training program. This figure is from 2006, so it may be much higher today. A decade earlier, 1996, only 71% of programs taught pain management. Bottom line, if you have a doctor that doesn't use a nerve block or other effective pain control agent, look until you find a doctor who does!!! And remember to ask about residual pain control, too.

Patients today should be far more informed than what is being reflected in these posts!

"Residual pain control" You mean "Tylenol"? Why don't you cut off your lips and all the skin around your teeth with some Anbesol or Orajel for no reason at all, and then take Tylenol for a few days until the skin heals? I mean, can you imagine how much easier it would be for us to keep our teeth clean without all that pesky extra skin?

How do you figure? My family doesn't use my penis. I do.

JorgeM, you don't have a say in your life until you are an adult. In the US that is 18. Therefore, your family decides everything for you until then. That is how we figure it is OUR decision to do what we feel is proper for our sons and daughters. If you want your son to decide when he is an adult, that is your business. As for my children it is MY business to make these types of decisions.

If an elderly man experiences infection because his intact penis isn't cleaned properly in a nursing home, then the staff is being negligent and lazy. That is no reason to subject an infant (or an elderly man) to painful surgery. That's absolutely a reason to train staff better and hold them to reasonable, decent standards.

Peregrine-

Have you ever BEEN to a nursing home? It is down right idealistic to expect that "to train the staff better and hold them to reasonable, decent standards" will result in every single elderly patient getting all the personal hygiene care he or she needs. Even in the high end homes, things like that get overlooked. Horrible? Yes.. but that's still what happens.

How does your husband feel about cleaning feces out of the labia of old ladies? If he has problems cleaning the genitals of incapacitated old folks, maybe he ought to find a new line of work.

Properly cleaning an uncircumcised baby is easy - you just wash the penis! The foreskin does not retract until the child is much older, and forcibly retracting the foreskin would be like forcibly peeling up your fingernails.

What happens in that same nursing home to women's genitals? Somehow, I'd imagine the picture is just as horrifying, yet we DO NOT use this as a reason to condone trimming down the labia of baby girls.

Spoken like a true Mom. "I don't feel like parenting so...just cut it off." Nice.

I don't feel like helping with your math so...just fail.

I don't feel like watching you all the time. Go outside and play.

I don't feel like...being a parent. Maybe - just maybe - you should spend more time parenting. None of my kids EVER had a problem with hygiene. Why? Because, as a parent, I step up and ensure that they are healthy.

I so agree! When people say "statistics show it prevents (insert whatever you like)" they rarely mention that the statistics are low low percentages. Shall mandate head shaving because it might prevent lice infestation?

Farmnteeth: You're right... plus circumscision shouldn't replace using a condom if you're the type of person to not be sure (or not care) if the person you're sleeping with is clean or not.

Even though I do understand what you are trying to get at... there's a difference between extra folds of skin and a clitoris. The clitoris is full of nerve endings and erectile tissues, and is like removing the penis. There is more lasting damage and pain for that kind of procedure than removing some skin.

Personally, I tend to look at the lasting effects circumcisions make before I'd back something that took personal choice/ religious obligation/ culture beliefs away from a parent. Is the man going to be forever emotionally scarred by such a ritual? Is he going to live his life in constant pain? Is such a procedure going to leave disfiguring scars that will make him an outcast or subject to teasing? If not... why force my way of thinking on parents that are just practicing what they feel is best?

There are some parents that pierces their infant's ear... and not for any benefit other than the parent's thoughts of the child's beauty. It's mutilating the soft tissue and risks infection as well.

MKCTN, you do not understand that a clitoris is RARELY (less than 15% of the time) removed. The other 85% of the time, the exact same thing is removed from the boys and the girls. The prepuce. You have it backwards. It is the girls who do NOT have circumcision done who are looked at as outcasts and teased! You don't understand that men who are circumcised ARE left with disfiguring scars. Half of their functioning organ is removed! This is not just a flap of skin, this is 20,000 nerve endings (in comparison to the girl's prepuce with contains 5,000 nerve endings). It is personal choice/religious obligations/cultural beliefs that motivate parents to remove their daughter's foreskin too you know! http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

I know what is done. You are talking specially removing the clitoral hood and not the clitoris itself, as you stated previously. Please, there is a difference between the two. Now talking just about removing the clitoral hood and removing the males foreskin... that can be compared more realistically. OK..... Now it's been proven that there is an increase of infection when the female 'circumcision' is preformed during and after healing including UTI's. The males do not show an increase and the debate is about if there is a decrease or not.

My son, my husband has no disfigurement, my ex husband has no disfigurement. There is no lasting pain, even according to them and (I've not butted into my son's affairs) but my husband has full sexual function and pleasure unlike what is reported by most female circumcision. I've also have a member of my family that chose to have a circumcision later in life.. according to him, he's not at all suffering.

Personally my opinion is that as long as there isn't a detrimental effects, and as far as the males that I know... there isn't, it's NOT my place to go in and tell parents they can't have their cultral beliefs, personal thoughts or religion because it goes against what I believe. Granted, the thought of cutting off any part can sound barbaric to those standing on the outside. shrugs... I think piercing a baby's ear where they can pull and tear their ears sounds barbaric.

How do you know your sexual experiences are all the richer since you have never been circumcised?

Because he has 20,000 more nerve endings than he would have had. If you develop a callous on your finger tip, do you still have as much sensation? Of course not. The same principle applies.

With the rest of the world so "right" with the common sense to leave in place what God or Nature (your preference), put in place to protect the glans of my penis,

...is somehow needing to be "corrected" by parents giving into societal or religious pressure, is totally contrary to Man being created in God's image. Without being blasphemous, I'm certain He's sporting a "raincoat!"

If God intended men to have foreskins, why did he order them to be removed in the Bible? Abraham was instructed to circumsize and this tradition is a vital part of Judaism and Christianity.

I don't understand why Europeans don't practice circumcision more - Germany and Europe is mostly Christian. The Europeans have become so secularized that they've lost touch with their Christian heritage. In America, Christians believe in keeping their religious heritage alive and so, we circumsize, as instructed by God.

Also, you have no way of knowing that you life is somehow "richer" - Uncircumsized men never miss the little snippet of skin that's removed. And, I don't see how such a small snippet is going to ruin anyone's enjoyment of sex. In America, we have most boys circumsized, we have plenty of people having sex (too many, I think). this completely demolishes the claim that circumcision destroys a peron's enjoyment of sex.

Circumcision is not required by the Christian faith, and in fact was introduced in the 1800s to the USA and British Empire as a cure for masturbation. It's not that Germany and the rest of Europe gave up circumcision, but rather they never adopted it in the first place.

If Christians in the USA took their religion into account when it came to this issue, they would be aware that the New Testament states in numerous passages that circumcision is NOT a requirement of their faith, nor are various other Jewish traditions.

You have no way of knowing how circumcision would affect a man's sexual experience unless you had it done to yourself as an adult, or have restored your foreskin. Do also consider that anyone who received a botched circumcision or one that was too tight would have a diminished experience (and sometimes painful, from what these men have told me).

We aren't talking about removing a penis, but part of the skin around it. Removing a woman's breasts involves removing far more than skin, not to mention the ability to nurse any children she may bear. I am not defending nor condemning circumcision, just clarifying that your comparison has no validity.

so are we discussing removing clits and lips ....NO.... then how can we even consider this?