Since we're diving into touchy topics...

Both ways look fine.

If we had had a son, my husband would have made the decision. I've read pros and cons for each, so it seems natural for the father to have the final say. (My husband preferred non-.)

coco

Given the choice, I wouldn't opt to have my sons bits messed with (if i had one), but I do respect that everyone differs.

Also, on a side note, having seen both "types" of penis up close and personal, i'd rather go with the one that DOESN'T look likes its going to split if you go near it, like some kind of phallic sausage in the pan, its skin splitting and the goodness oozing out.... yeah you get the idea.

kthxbai

I agree. Uncircumcised penises take more effort to keep clean as well, which is another reason parents elect to have their newborns circumcised. Men who are not circumcised can experience less "sensation" at the tip than those who have had the procedure. This obviously leads to another topic of oral sex in which case those men who have not been circumcised require more enhanced "techniques" to arouse and please.

(Don't ask me how I know this.
Just absorb the information.)

That's the most backwards thing I've read on this forum.

When you're circumcised, the head of the penis (the most sensitive part) rubs around on the inside of your clothing. Ask any male who still has his foreskin if he can tell when it's pulled back or not. There is a difference.

You also aren't going to be able to get around the fact that the missing skin and nerve endings being cut off will do anything other than reduce sensitivity. Less is less. Try killing some of your nerves in your face and tell me you feel more than I do.

As a man, let me say...

Bulllllllony.

Perhaps it's different for different guys?
I am just going by discussions I have had in the past on the subject with men. If I am wrong, I do apologize but I have not heard anything different until now. Then again the circumcised penis is more common to me and I wouldn't say I was an expert of any sort on the latter.

LOL
G'night

Ah, I was wrong. I admit it.
I found an article on a study done on this subject:

From: someone

Erogenous tissue.

the foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.5 21 The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone6 with nerve endings near the surface of the ridged band arranged in rete ridges.29 The foreskin is noted for its sensory pleasure.12 36 51 Circumcision, therefore, diminishes sexual sensation.

Found at:
Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

That's where I have to disagree. In my opinion, the person who should have the final say is the person who is having the procedure done to them.

Although I'm glad to hear your husband is pro-skin!

It is interesting that similar procedures in women, such as a clitoridotomy (the removal of the clitoral hood) is considered barbaric and against a female's human rights, but male circumcision is still acceptable.

I agree with you, though parents often have to make medical choices for children. However, considering this is hardly a necessary procedure, I don't think parental rights should apply here at all in having the procedure done.

Until you have children of your own, you won't be able to understand the offense we parents take at such off-the-cuff statements. We are also treading on religious territory, here, and we all know how well we manage those debates.

My son's father and I chose to not have him endure circumcision. When I was 8-month's pregnant, I met with the pediatrician I had chosen (a woman) and asked her the medical ramifications (no pun intended) of leaving him "in-tact." She said, though the studies were inconclusive, that there was no evidence that forgoing circumcision would cause him harm--increased incidence of infection, etc.

When he is older and he asks why I made this choice, I will tell him the truth--"Son, you can always remove what is there, but you would have found it most difficult to replace what had been removed."

I imagine it's about as offensive as I find having body parts removed w/o my input.

Also, I don't think it is fair *at all* to dismiss someone's comments because they don't have children. I don't and yet I certainly feel I have a right to have some input in the conversation, for obvious reasons.


I think we *should* be discussing the religious aspect of it. If a religion were removing finger tips of children - it would be considered barbaric and probably outlawed by now. Yes, there's a difference, but to close off discussion because it is sometimes a religious ritual is absurd.

Religious ceremony should not be an untouchable simply because it is religious in nature. If noone had ever challenged the religious status quo, there's a high chance Christianity would not be nearly as popular as it is today.

I guess my approach to this topic is one of personal rights and freedom of choice - something that gets tossed out when you are not consulted prior to the event.

Please spare me the condescension, Paolo. My having a child or not having a child does not invalidate my opinion. I have not dimissed your opinion, so kindly do not dismiss mine - there was nothing off the cuff about it. It is one thing for a parent to give consent for a necessary medical procedure to a child that cannot give consent. It is quite another to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure - religious reasons or not. I don't care if it is tradition - it is a barbaric tradition and is a choice that someone should be able to make about their own body.

I used to ponder this question myself. Then after finding out that if I have a second child there is about a 75% chance they will be autistic too,, I chose not to have another child..And since my daughter has a 90% chance that she would have an autisitc child, I figure I can put this question behind me for life.

Doubt I'll ever know what I would choose

"Honey.. if you could choose, would you have chosen to have it done?" I said "No.. I was born with it and I would've preferred to keep all of my penis" Juro

Priceless

LOL! Me, too. I just knew *you* would be the person to use the "I'm glad my willy wasn't made nilly" rebuttal

This is a very sensitive subject, in more ways than one. I remember thinking while I was pregnant "God, I hope this isn't a boy" simply because I didn't want to have to make the decision to have my son circumcised. During that time, I worked in a 40 bed neonatal intensive care unit and there were about 15 of us nurses pregnant and due to deliver within a few months of one another. Circumcision was a hot topic among us "mommies to be". One afternoon, one of our neonatologists heard us debating the pros and cons and he regaled us with the story of his own circumcision at age 26. Talk about TMI!

Well, its actually kinda making a comeback - something I didn't know until I read up on it. Supposedly it increases sexual pleasure?

I think what you're thinking about is clitoridectomy, which is removal of the entire clitoris (Type II circumcision) or infibulation, where they essentially gouge out everything and sew the remainer up, leaving a tiny hole.

From Wikipedia:


Probably the main difference - besides the severity of the mutilation - is the intended result of the operation. As stated, for men, circumcision was done for mainly religious/hygenic reasons. Increase or decrease of sensation aside, circumcised men can still function pretty well in the sack. For women, clitoridectomy and infibulation was/is done for the express purpose of either dulling or completely removing a woman's sex drive.

I won't over-react to your over-reaction if you won't over-react to mine. What bothered me was your statement about parental rights, not your opinion about the procedure. You and Juro obviously take this far more seriously than I do. And, you do choose some rather pejorative terms when expressing your opinion. "Barbaric?" Come on.

Ultimately, I don't miss that which I have never known, and between us friends, I enjoy a very fulfilling sex life as a "cut" man. I don't feel upset or cheated because of it. Not by a long shot.

And Juro, do you really think this group of forum trolls can rationally debate the religious aspects of this procedure? Do the search: The track record sucks.

So, vilify me for moderately opposing your view, if you must.

OK. I honestly think that parents should have every right to instruct a pediatrician to perform an ancient, long-standing and virtually harmless procedure -- especially if their religious beliefs call for it. I watched it being performed on my sons. You'd be surprised how little skin is actually removed.

Virtually harmless? Tell that to this guy. (second letter on the page).

If a parent can be charged with child abuse for sending their kid outside without enough sunscreen on, it's absurd that this medically-unnececessary procedure is still performed with such frequency in the U.S.

My 2 cents: I dont buy into the sensitivity arguement. If you had it removed at birth, how would you know what you missed? Who's to say that it doesnt compensate, like people who have brain damage on one side so the other side compensates for the missing part.

Also, my dad had his cut away at 21 due to infection. It was quite painful, tho this was many years ago so I'm sure its not as bad now.

Either way you look at it: Does it still work? Can you pee with it? If yes, then dont worry about it. It could be worse!

One botched circumcision is anecdotal, at best.

Who keeps the remnants of the bris anyway? Are the parents allowed to keep it or does the rabbi tan and dry them and use them to embroider his button holes? What happens to them?