Call me crazy but as a parent, seems to me that the better logic isn't "get him cut so assholes in the locker room won't laugh at his pee pee". It should be "raise your kids to have confidence in themselves regardless how they look." I mean, would anyone hear suggest their kids get plastic surgery simply to be more aesthetically conformist?
Same thing goes for the "they won't remember." I could put cigarettes out of a 1 month old's arms and they probably won't remember that either. That doesn't mean it's not traumatic.
Seriously, how many adult men here would volunteer to have a medically unnecessary procedure done on your own dick just 1) to fit in or 2) for aesthetic reasons?
Notably, I think the only people advocating for this are people already cut. Maybe I missed it but have any uncut men said, "yeah man - slice that shit!"
Fatback - I'd do more medical research, talk to wifey's obgyn or a urologist and ge the skinny. Uktimately, it's your son but just realize that your talking about something that has implications beyond aesthetics and tradition.
I say trim the little guy up. I have absoultely no recollection of that experience and neither will he. But, he may ask you later on in life why he wasn't circumcised (and not the other way around).
Leave it on and he's got the option. Take it off and it's a done deal.
Have you ever heard anyone complain about being circumcised?
You're the parent, trust those instincts and make the decision for your kid.
To be honest, I've never had a real world conversation about it so I've never heard anyone complain either way.
I understand what Raj says about not being able to clean it/show him how to clean without some little unpopped dick training. On the other point, everything I've read does not indicate that there any medical reason for it, so it fails my first test.
He'll have someone make fun of him in the locker room for whatever. But come on, there are kids who have to wear helmets in the locker room and all kinds of other shit that stands out more than dick shapes.
What about reducing the risk of HPV and cervical cancer for his partner? Would that be a good enough reason?
So would using a condom. So would teaching yr kids to be sexually responsible. If circumcision was like a vaccine - that'd be one thing but we're talking about a reduction that can be achieved through a variety of non-surgical methods.
This raises an interesting pt though - Coselmed, what's your opinion of the HPV vaccine?
This is definitely a public health issue. You can read about it in almost any medical journal. See the article Coselmed posted above.
As far as sensitivity, there have been peer-reviewed articles that suggest that there is no difference in sensitivity for people who were circumsized as babies and those who are uncircumcised.
I do not think there is a wrong choice to make (given that you do not live in sub-saharan africa), but I think knowing the facts is important. Condoms obviously do a better job protecting than going in raw any way you cut it. Cleaning is good. you know, the basics. There is a very strong, almost vitriolic anti-circumcision voice out there that I would recommend not listening to.
Adult circumcision is a completely different story with many more complications, so saying it's a choice to be left up to a child later in life, is, I believe, wrong.
So would using a condom. So would teaching yr kids to be sexually responsible.
I think you're underestimating how easily HPV is contracted; there are over 100 strains (30-40 that are usually sexually transmitted), and since most are benign and not detected by standard pap smears, the prevalance is likely higher than reported. People can be infected with multiple strains at one time, too. It sounds as if you're basically suggesting that people never exchange bodily fluids with one another, because it's really that common.
I'm a big proponent of the vaccine (and even the required vaccination that Merck was trying to lobby for). My sister was in the clinical trials for Gardasil, and the data that I've read suggest that it's a good preventative tool for a very aggressive form of cancer. That said, as with any vaccine, it's not foolproof, nor 100% protective from the strains that can give you warts.
From knowing a kid who had to get his "little man" the "bowl cut" in junior high, I would recommend getting it snipped. Plus, thorough wang cleansing might not be something you/your wife/your child wants to do everyday.
It does make me smile when this topic comes up. How did circumcision become so prevalent in America?
It's not particularly common here in the UK. But a good friend of mine, who moved to Cali in his teens, told me he was called Mr Flappy as he was the only guy uncut. As for medical reasons, I can't see any really convincing arguments. With the sensitivity issue, I can't see how you could not become less sensitive. Based on personal opinion alone. I kinda hurts just thinking about it. Yes you don't need lotion. And really there is very little difference between an erect cut penis or uncut, so the "sexual(girls sensation related)" argument is bullshit.
Plus, thorough wang cleansing might not be something you/your wife/your child wants to do everyday.
This is really not an issue until your child hits puberty, like most other personal hygene issues. And if you then shower everyday anyway, its not an issue at all.
I certainly don't remember the experience, but I do remember going to a cousin's briss when I was about 10 and I couldn't help but feel bad for the kid!! Your lil dude will be fine either way I'm sure.
As for medical reasons, I can't see any really convincing arguments.
Reduced incidence of urinary tract infections in men Reduction in the transmission of HIV, syphilis, genital herpes and chancroid Reduced transmission of HPV
These, in my opinion, are all sound and compelling medical arguments. You can verify any of these by doing a search here, as Mike suggested. All of the links will lead you to abstracts of studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
no need to cut him. People take baths or showers regularly these days. Even if he doesn't bathe regulary you can teach him that "when you go pee, if it smells funny or looks funny...take a shower."
teach him about condoms and just to be smart about his body.
And as far as the being made fun of in gym thing...Do kids really get naked still? I never ever did in my entire K-12 experience. Kids are so embarrassed in gym that they'll be embarassed with whatever. Some dude's got pimples on his back. Some dude's got man boobs. Some dude is hairy as fuck. Bottom line, we're all weirdos and middle school and high school suck for pretty much everyone. Another thing to think about if you are concerned about his gym class emotional state...it seems to be a lot more commonplace to leave kids uncircumcised these days, so there will probably be a few other fellows rocking the turtle neck.
So would using a condom. So would teaching yr kids to be sexually responsible.
I think you're underestimating how easily HPV is contracted; there are over 100 strains (30-40 that are usually sexually transmitted), and since most are benign and not detected by standard pap smears, the prevalance is likely higher than reported. People can be infected with multiple strains at one time, too. It sounds as if you're basically suggesting that people never exchange bodily fluids with one another, because it's really that common.
I'm a big proponent of the vaccine (and even the required vaccination that Merck was trying to lobby for). My sister was in the clinical trials for Gardasil, and the data that I've read suggest that it's a good preventative tool for a very aggressive form of cancer. That said, as with any vaccine, it's not foolproof, nor 100% protective from the strains that can give you warts.
Just to clarify - I don't have a problem with circumcision if the medical data supports it. I have a problem with it if the only rationale is either 1) it looks better or 2) it just seems like everyone else is doing it.
The HPV data is interesting - I hadn't seen that yet. I had read about the links b/t circumcision in reducing HIV transmission but as Mike noted - that's mostly relevant in areas hardest hit by HIV and may not be actually relevant to a child growing up in North America (not yet at least).
What's interesting is how the positions have evolved over time - the medical establishment in the '70s and '80s basically said, "circumcision has no real medical value" but since the '90s, they've been changing that. However, I think the anti-circumcision camp (which I don't really consider myself part of) has, to me at least, only become really vocal in the last 10-20 years; it'll be interesting to see how their position shifts (if it does) as the medical opinions change.
Another one for you, O...The study results showed that 100% condom use reduced the transmission of HPV only by 62.2 percent; unlike most other STDs, condoms are considerably less effective in preventing HPV. The 60% reduction is very similar to the results of the HIV studies, by the way.
Another one for you, O...The study results showed that 100% condom use reduced the transmission of HPV only by 62.2 percent; unlike most other STDs, condoms are considerably less effective in preventing HPV. The 60% reduction is very similar to the results of the HIV studies, by the way.
So let me pose this delicate question: if the HPV vaccination became more or less universal, would that undercut the argument for circumcision?
(Note: I am NOT advocating for women to have to take the full burden and to me, the sexual health of one's partner is as relevant as one's own...it just seems that, down the road, this could be a non-issue for reasons wholly independent of the circumcision debate).
So let me pose this delicate question: if the HPV vaccination became more or less universal, would that undercut the argument for circumcision?
Absolutely not! Gardasil only protects against strains 16 and 18 (two of the highest-risk strains for cervical cancer) and 6 and 11 (associated with warts). That would leave about 114+ unprotected strains.
As for medical reasons, I can't see any really convincing arguments.
Reduced incidence of urinary tract infections in men Reduction in the transmission of HIV, syphilis, genital herpes and chancroid Reduced transmission of HPV
These, in my opinion, are all sound and compelling medical arguments. You can verify any of these by doing a search here, as Mike suggested. All of the links will lead you to abstracts of studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
I'm sorry but they're just not convincing. And some seemed rather biased towards finding a link betweeen non-circumcised men and a stds. And its not like being circumcised radically reduces stds, otherwise surely the US, Israel, Muslim countries would have a very low rate of infection. Which is simply not true.
And as some one who has come on here before and voiced her dislike of the look of uncircumcised men, I find it hard to listern to your medical arguement. If there were some dubious medical health benefits to removing the clitoral hood would you be saying what a great idea that was to?
Seriously, how many adult men here would volunteer to have a medically unnecessary procedure done on your own dick just 1) to fit in or 2) for aesthetic reasons?
If it would make it a little smaller, I would. I keep banging it against the coffee table.
Absolutely not! Gardasil only protects against strains 16 and 18 (two of the highest-risk strains for cervical cancer) and 6 and 11 (associated with warts). That would leave about 114+ unprotected strains.
How do they do these studies? Do they factor in the person's lifestyle? Because looking at the statics for HPV, cervical cancer, and AIDS, the countries which predominantely cut vs the ones that don't seem pretty close in terms of the number of people infected with them. The US which has one of the highest population of circumcised men has a higher rate of AIDs infected adults over many of the European countries where circumcision is basically non-existed.
Seriously, how many adult men here would volunteer to have a medically unnecessary procedure done on your own dick just 1) to fit in or 2) for aesthetic reasons?
If it would make it a little smaller, I would. I keep banging it against the coffee table.
Maybe you should stop walking around on your knees then.
As for medical reasons, I can't see any really convincing arguments.
Reduced incidence of urinary tract infections in men Reduction in the transmission of HIV, syphilis, genital herpes and chancroid Reduced transmission of HPV
These, in my opinion, are all sound and compelling medical arguments. You can verify any of these by doing a search here, as Mike suggested. All of the links will lead you to abstracts of studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
I'm sorry but they're just not convincing. And some seemed rather biased towards finding a link betweeen non-circumcised men and a stds. And its not like being circumcised radically reduces stds, otherwise surely the US, Israel, Muslim countries would have a very low rate of infection. Which is simply not true.
And as some one who has come on here before and voiced her dislike of the look of uncircumcised men, I find it hard to listern to your medical arguement. If there were some dubious medical health benefits to removing the clitoral hood would you be saying what a great idea that was to?
It's not my medical argument; these are the results of randomized, controlled trials. Are you comfortable interpreting the results of such studies? If not, I'm inclined not to be convinced by your non-argument, because I do this for a living. And would you prefer that all men go uncircumcised so we could find out just how high the rate of infection from STDs might be?
As for the aesthetic point, that's strictly my personal preference. It certainly isn't, as Oliver pointed out, a legitimate reason to circumcise. Female genital cutting is a terrible analogy because it actually introduces a host of medical complications rather than preventing them.
How do they do these studies? Do they factor in the person's lifestyle? Because looking at the statics for HPV, cervical cancer, and AIDS, the countries which predominantely cut vs the ones that don't seem pretty close in terms of the number of people infected with them. The US which has one of the highest population of circumcised men has a higher rate of AIDs infected adults over many of the European countries where circumcision is basically non-existed.
The inclusion/exclusion criteria for each study is different; some (like the college student study with the 38.2% incidence of HPV after 100 percent condom use) would require a monogamous sexual partner so the results wouldn't be confounded. But others wouldn't exclude people with multiple partners because they want to evaluate the rate of transmission in a real-world setting. Some studies would exclude smokers, because of their increased risk of cancers, period. So in that people choose to smoke, lifestyle choices may be one consideration.
Also, you shouldn't use sites like wrongdiagnosis.com or Wikipedia for your medical information. If you want to evaluate statistics, try CDC.gov or whatever the comparable site is (like Cochrane Reviews) in the UK.
Comments
Same thing goes for the "they won't remember." I could put cigarettes out of a 1 month old's arms and they probably won't remember that either. That doesn't mean it's not traumatic.
Seriously, how many adult men here would volunteer to have a medically unnecessary procedure done on your own dick just 1) to fit in or 2) for aesthetic reasons?
Notably, I think the only people advocating for this are people already cut. Maybe I missed it but have any uncut men said, "yeah man - slice that shit!"
Fatback - I'd do more medical research, talk to wifey's obgyn or a urologist and ge the skinny. Uktimately, it's your son but just realize that your talking about something that has implications beyond aesthetics and tradition.
To be honest, I've never had a real world conversation about it so I've never heard anyone complain either way.
He'll have someone make fun of him in the locker room for whatever. But come on, there are kids who have to wear helmets in the locker room and all kinds of other shit that stands out more than dick shapes.
So would using a condom. So would teaching yr kids to be sexually responsible. If circumcision was like a vaccine - that'd be one thing but we're talking about a reduction that can be achieved through a variety of non-surgical methods.
This raises an interesting pt though - Coselmed, what's your opinion of the HPV vaccine?
As far as sensitivity, there have been peer-reviewed articles that suggest that there is no difference in sensitivity for people who were circumsized as babies and those who are uncircumcised.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...3526&query_hl=1
I do not think there is a wrong choice to make (given that you do not live in sub-saharan africa), but I think knowing the facts is important. Condoms obviously do a better job protecting than going in raw any way you cut it. Cleaning is good. you know, the basics. There is a very strong, almost vitriolic anti-circumcision voice out there that I would recommend not listening to.
Adult circumcision is a completely different story with many more complications, so saying it's a choice to be left up to a child later in life, is, I believe, wrong.
I think you're underestimating how easily HPV is contracted; there are over 100 strains (30-40 that are usually sexually transmitted), and since most are benign and not detected by standard pap smears, the prevalance is likely higher than reported. People can be infected with multiple strains at one time, too. It sounds as if you're basically suggesting that people never exchange bodily fluids with one another, because it's really that common.
I'm a big proponent of the vaccine (and even the required vaccination that Merck was trying to lobby for). My sister was in the clinical trials for Gardasil, and the data that I've read suggest that it's a good preventative tool for a very aggressive form of cancer. That said, as with any vaccine, it's not foolproof, nor 100% protective from the strains that can give you warts.
It's not particularly common here in the UK. But a good friend of mine, who moved to Cali in his teens, told me he was called Mr Flappy as he was the only guy uncut.
As for medical reasons, I can't see any really convincing arguments.
With the sensitivity issue, I can't see how you could not become less sensitive. Based on personal opinion alone. I kinda hurts just thinking about it.
Yes you don't need lotion. And really there is very little difference between an erect cut penis or uncut, so the "sexual(girls sensation related)" argument is bullshit.
This is really not an issue until your child hits puberty, like most other personal hygene issues. And if you then shower everyday anyway, its not an issue at all.
What exactly do you think a foreskin is? It's not like it takes an hour to wash, you might add 2 seconds to your shower.
Fatback- do whatever you want, but the vocal majority here is clearly circumcised an unknowledgeable of the foreskin- talk to a doctor.
Reduced incidence of urinary tract infections in men
Reduction in the transmission of HIV, syphilis, genital herpes and chancroid
Reduced transmission of HPV
These, in my opinion, are all sound and compelling medical arguments. You can verify any of these by doing a search here, as Mike suggested. All of the links will lead you to abstracts of studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
teach him about condoms and just to be smart about his body.
And as far as the being made fun of in gym thing...Do kids really get naked still? I never ever did in my entire K-12 experience. Kids are so embarrassed in gym that they'll be embarassed with whatever. Some dude's got pimples on his back. Some dude's got man boobs. Some dude is hairy as fuck. Bottom line, we're all weirdos and middle school and high school suck for pretty much everyone. Another thing to think about if you are concerned about his gym class emotional state...it seems to be a lot more commonplace to leave kids uncircumcised these days, so there will probably be a few other fellows rocking the turtle neck.
Just to clarify - I don't have a problem with circumcision if the medical data supports it. I have a problem with it if the only rationale is either 1) it looks better or 2) it just seems like everyone else is doing it.
The HPV data is interesting - I hadn't seen that yet. I had read about the links b/t circumcision in reducing HIV transmission but as Mike noted - that's mostly relevant in areas hardest hit by HIV and may not be actually relevant to a child growing up in North America (not yet at least).
What's interesting is how the positions have evolved over time - the medical establishment in the '70s and '80s basically said, "circumcision has no real medical value" but since the '90s, they've been changing that. However, I think the anti-circumcision camp (which I don't really consider myself part of) has, to me at least, only become really vocal in the last 10-20 years; it'll be interesting to see how their position shifts (if it does) as the medical opinions change.
"well, I was gonna have it snipped, but some dude with twice as many raers as me said I shouldn't...."
Another one for you, O...The study results showed that 100% condom use reduced the transmission of HPV only by 62.2 percent; unlike most other STDs, condoms are considerably less effective in preventing HPV. The 60% reduction is very similar to the results of the HIV studies, by the way.
So let me pose this delicate question: if the HPV vaccination became more or less universal, would that undercut the argument for circumcision?
(Note: I am NOT advocating for women to have to take the full burden and to me, the sexual health of one's partner is as relevant as one's own...it just seems that, down the road, this could be a non-issue for reasons wholly independent of the circumcision debate).
Absolutely not! Gardasil only protects against strains 16 and 18 (two of the highest-risk strains for cervical cancer) and 6 and 11 (associated with warts). That would leave about 114+ unprotected strains.
Good enough for Rey, good enough for us all.
I'm sorry but they're just not convincing. And some seemed rather biased towards finding a link betweeen non-circumcised men and a stds. And its not like being circumcised radically reduces stds, otherwise surely the US, Israel, Muslim countries would have a very low rate of infection. Which is simply not true.
And as some one who has come on here before and voiced her dislike of the look of uncircumcised men, I find it hard to listern to your medical arguement. If there were some dubious medical health benefits to removing the clitoral hood would you be saying what a great idea that was to?
If it would make it a little smaller, I would. I keep banging it against the coffee table.
How do they do these studies? Do they factor in the person's lifestyle? Because looking at the statics for HPV, cervical cancer, and AIDS, the countries which predominantely cut vs the ones that don't seem pretty close in terms of the number of people infected with them. The US which has one of the highest population of circumcised men has a higher rate of AIDs infected adults over many of the European countries where circumcision is basically non-existed.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/cervical_cancer/stats-country.htm
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/human_papillomavirus/stats-country.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate-
Maybe you should stop walking around on your knees then.
It's not my medical argument; these are the results of randomized, controlled trials. Are you comfortable interpreting the results of such studies? If not, I'm inclined not to be convinced by your non-argument, because I do this for a living. And would you prefer that all men go uncircumcised so we could find out just how high the rate of infection from STDs might be?
As for the aesthetic point, that's strictly my personal preference. It certainly isn't, as Oliver pointed out, a legitimate reason to circumcise. Female genital cutting is a terrible analogy because it actually introduces a host of medical complications rather than preventing them.
The inclusion/exclusion criteria for each study is different; some (like the college student study with the 38.2% incidence of HPV after 100 percent condom use) would require a monogamous sexual partner so the results wouldn't be confounded. But others wouldn't exclude people with multiple partners because they want to evaluate the rate of transmission in a real-world setting. Some studies would exclude smokers, because of their increased risk of cancers, period. So in that people choose to smoke, lifestyle choices may be one consideration.
Also, you shouldn't use sites like wrongdiagnosis.com or Wikipedia for your medical information. If you want to evaluate statistics, try CDC.gov or whatever the comparable site is (like Cochrane Reviews) in the UK.