|
[ Pregnancy and Infants' Illness Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I'm due in 4 weeks and it is a boy. The issue of circumcision seems to raise some rabid responses. I was wondering if I could get a sense from the other mothers on this board and whether it is only prevalent amongst men over 40. No religious or cultural issues involved.
Thanks,
Rachel
In Reply to: Circumcision or not? posted by Rachel on April 08, 2001 at 19:36:59:
Hello, Rachel, with all due respect, I would be surveying MEN on this issue and not mothers. I cannot speak for others, however I believe that most men will agree with me: circumcision is preferred at 4 to 1! Since we're talking about the male's perception and comfort, you might also want to ask a MALE doctor what he thinks, he'll very likely say the same thing. Take care!
In Reply to: Circumcision or not? posted by Rachel on April 08, 2001 at 19:36:59:
I don't agree with circumcision. Let me tell you why. I have two sons, and a husband who are not circumcised. My first son wasn't done because at the time I was 17 years old with no health insurance, so the hospital wouldn't do it unless I paid cash. I was just a kid myself back then, and didn't have any cash to pay for it. I was glad later on. My second son was born more than four weeks premature. The doctors told me that when he was well enough, I could make the decision to circumcise, or not. I made an appointment to get more information on it, and was horrified when they told me that I would not be allowed in the room, and that his hands and legs would be tied down to prevent him from moving as they cut the foreskin off. I asked if he would have anisthetic shots for it, they said, "no", but he'll never remember it. That was enough information for me to decide against it. If you really think about it, how would you like to have your finger cut off, and have someone tell you with a smile...."don't worry about the pain now, you won't remember it in two years." Would you go through with it? Especially if there was nothing wrong with your finger? Or how would you like to be circumcised? In foreign countries they still circumcise some girls after they start menstrating. They say that it's because it will keep them cleaner. Isn't that the same thing we're talking about with little boy babies? Or is it different because these women can choose to do it, or run away and be rejected by their families. At least they have a choice.
My husband is not circumcised. He is the cleanest man I've ever met. Because he was not circumcised, his parents taught him meticulous hygeine. We have great sex, and he is very happy to have all of his body intact. He is now teaching our sons how to be meticulous about their body hygeine, too.
In Reply to: Re: Circumcision or not? posted by sarahw on April 08, 2001 at 21:35:52:
Don't be ridiculous as you get carried away and give false info. on female circumcision in other countries. It is not to keep them cleaner. It is to take away their sexual desire so they will not stray. In extreme cases, they even sew a portion of their vagina shut leaving only room for the flow of menstruation. They actually remove the clitoris for female circumcision. It is completely different than male circumcision. No comparison can be made. If you don't agree with male circumcision, fine. State that fact and a supporting argument that has something to do with it.
In Reply to: Circumcision or not? posted by Rachel on April 08, 2001 at 19:36:59:
Just some info to help make your own decision. My father was not circumcised as a baby. He had NO problems until LATER in life (50 years old!) and had to be circumcised at 50!!!!! He was having urinary troubles, etc. He is diabetic and they get all sorts of complications from the disease. I had a son this year and he said, "I hope you are going to get him circumcised NOW, because it is not fun taking the risk of having it done at 50." Just some info.
In Reply to: Re: Circumcision or not? posted by on April 08, 2001 at 22:24:36:
nmi
In Reply to: Circumcision or not? posted by Rachel on April 08, 2001 at 19:36:59:
Rachel, your absolutely right. This is a controversial issue. It requires research on your own so that you can get all the true facts on circumcision so YOU can make that decision that fits you. Check out this website www.mothersagainstcirc.or/ It gives an overall vew of the circumcision decision. You can also go to google.com and search circumcision. It comes up with many different websites. It is a changing tradition and many people have a hard time dealing with the new. See for yourself!!!
Take Care
Barb
In Reply to: Re: Circumcision or not? posted by on April 08, 2001 at 22:27:57:
I think your father's problems are from being diabetic, not from being uncircumcised. I am sure circumcisised diabetics have urinary troubles too. What your father should have said to you is "I hope you are not going to feed your son refined carbohydrates so that he doesn't develop diabetis."
In Reply to: Re: Circumcision or not? posted by JB on April 08, 2001 at 20:12:34:
I am a born and raised American women, and I find that
unless a man was born here into an Americanized family they
are UNcircumsized. I have dated italian, greek, latino, and
polish men..all of whom were either first generation or
second generation in this country. Not a one of them was
circumsized. They were all healthy, clean, and the sex was
very enjoyable. I find that it is all cultural and with the
excpetion of American culture...there is no stigma that goes
along with having a foreskin. The truth is as long as a man
keeps himself clean (with or without a foresking) he
shouldn't have an
In Reply to: Re: Circumcision or not? posted by JB on April 08, 2001 at 20:12:34:
Do you really think so? I have 3 nephews. The first one did not have a circumcision because he was too ill after being born. The other two had them done after birth. I remember their grandfather telling us that Rodney would enjoy sex much more with the extra skin left on. Always thought that was true since it came from a man's point of view.
In Reply to: Re: Circumcision or not? posted by Rose on April 09, 2001 at 12:37:24:
Barbara, your grandad's comment is really amusing because it shows how a person is easily biased in favor of his own experience. In reality, very few men can compare the two states because it's rare than a man has this done later in life. Having said that, I'll provide the anecdotal comment that in every article or story I've read about in which a man DID have it done later in life, they express no regrets. Despite your grandad's sentiments, a man's sexual pleasure has NOTHING to do with the OUTSIDE skin! Of course, I realize that a woman cannot know what the sensation IS for a man, that's why I find it funny that the orginal poster wanted to survey mothers!...Now, on to Rose's comments. Rose, I appreciate that you had sexual pleasure with uncircumsided men, however that is simply NOT the point. I also disagree with your presumption that American's have stigmatized the uncircumcised male. I don't believe that's the case, at all. Doctors in the U.S. have been recommending the procedure for a long time, as a means of simplifying personal hygiene for boys AND men. And contrary to your assumption, sexual pleasure is simply not a factor because the SKIN ain't where the pleasure is, my dear! In the final analysis, the comfort and well-being of the male is what should be considered, and I am VERY glad that I had it done at birth. :)
In Reply to: Circumcision or not? posted by Rachel on April 08, 2001 at 19:36:59:
Go to this website for circumcision. www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/cir.html
Read first some facts. Then see how you feel.
In Reply to: to Barbara and Rose > posted by JB on April 09, 2001 at 18:45:05:
JB, When you write that "A mans sexual pleasure has NOTHING to do with the outside skin" I knew you never had sex before you were circumcised. I guess I am biased in my opinion but, I happen to be a male who was circumcised 5 years after marriage due to a fungus I picked up in jungle in vietnam, Where we could not keep clean not seeing a shower some times for 25 days.I was 26 years old at the time.I never had any sons, but they would not have been circumcised because to me it was no big deal as far as the surgery was concerned. I would reverse the surgery in a minute if I could. Do not get me wrong, sex is great now but nothing like before. I can assure you sex before and after being circumcised in my case is a lot different. It took all the REAL sensation away. I am not going to go into other details, but if you have not had it both ways you do not know the difference. On the other hand for personal hygiene I agree it is better to be circumcised. Good luck
In Reply to: Circumcision or not? posted by Rachel on April 08, 2001 at 19:36:59:
Hi, Rachel.
I was circumcised at age 5 and remember every horrid minute of it. I wish I had had it done at birth. I have been forever grateful that I was circumcised.
However, I DO believe that it should not be done as a routine but for need and that no matter how young the patient, suitable anesthesia MUST be used.
The day of the circumcisioni board", where the child was just immobilized and NO anesthesia used at all, belongs in the museum with the relics of the Spanish Inquisition.
Now you have MY personal opinion.
Walt
In Reply to: Circumcision or not? posted by Rachel on April 08, 2001 at 19:36:59:
my friend had her two sons' foreskins only partially removed. they leave a good portion, but not all, of the foreskin on. It's easier ot keep clean and you keep the benefit of the protective skin..
from talking with one uncircumsised man and another who had the procedure mentioend above, they felt it kept the penis more sensitive if the skin is not removed.
In Reply to: Re: to Barbara and Rose > posted by Davetx on April 09, 2001 at 22:31:40:
nm
|
[ Pregnancy and Infants' Illness Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |