It is a personal if not religious choice but I don't recommend it.
Printable View
It is a personal if not religious choice but I don't recommend it.
Because it was unnecessary surgery. It causes immediate pain and a lack of pleasure (allegedly), for questionable, if any, benefits. It's been 15 years now, and I've never had reason to question the decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Not to be a prick, but it will when they see their first porn.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
...hope I didnt step over any bounds there...
Oh wait, one of your boys is 15?
Well, nevermind, he's already seen his first porn (most likely).
BTW, the list provided by Snake Boy has a list of Cons - neither boy has had urinary tract infections, head infections, or inability to retract. (No STD's yet, either - but the 8 year old is too young for that to be an issue, and the 15 year old, well, too goofy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
Yep.
Grandma caught him on HER computer!!!! That was a pleasant phone call from mom....
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Classic.
Awesome. :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I'm with 101A on this one. I am circumcized, but my son is not. We have had zero issues.
To put it simply, it is an unnecessary surgical procedure. The benefits do not clearly outweigh the risks unless you are Jewish or live in a high-HIV infection country.
With modern health knowledge and practices, circumcision is not necessary in my opinion. The Torah had it as law, and like so many other laws, I believe was for health reason. We now have toilets, and don't go so far away and bury our excrement. For that reason, don't listen to the Bible Thumpers.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Snakeboy's reason I would agree is the most valid one. Not very many women accept the uncut men. That is the consensus of the women I have had unusual conversations with around the penis.
All of those things are just a higher risk factor not saying that any of it will happen. Odds are still higher that there will be no difference if they are or aren't circumcised.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
My wife gets the NEJM and I usually look through it. I knew I had seen something about circumcision & std's recently. I found the abstract online so you can see some real numbers to the risk factors.
Quote:
Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HSV-2 and HPV Infections and Syphilis
ABSTRACT
Background Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among men in three clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy of male circumcision for the prevention of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) and human papillomavirus (HPV) infections and syphilis in HIV-negative adolescent boys and men.
Methods We enrolled 5534 HIV-negative, uncircumcised male subjects between the ages of 15 and 49 years in two trials of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Of these subjects, 3393 (61.3%) were HSV-2–seronegative at enrollment. Of the seronegative subjects, 1684 had been randomly assigned to undergo immediate circumcision (intervention group) and 1709 to undergo circumcision after 24 months (control group). At baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months, we tested subjects for HSV-2 and HIV infection and syphilis, along with performing physical examinations and conducting interviews. In addition, we evaluated a subgroup of subjects for HPV infection at baseline and at 24 months.
Results At 24 months, the cumulative probability of HSV-2 seroconversion was 7.8% in the intervention group and 10.3% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio in the intervention group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.92; P=0.008). The prevalence of high-risk HPV genotypes was 18.0% in the intervention group and 27.9% in the control group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P=0.009). However, no significant difference between the two study groups was observed in the incidence of syphilis (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.65; P=0.44).
Conclusions In addition to decreasing the incidence of HIV infection, male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HSV-2 infection and the prevalence of HPV infection, findings that underscore the potential public health benefits of the procedure.
This notion that women gross out at an uncircumsized penis is obviously a geographical thing as the vast majority of men in Europe are not circumsized unless they are Jewish or Muslim.
That being said, I left it up to my son's dad who is a physician- and he wanted it done.
Of course, but in American society that is how it is viewed. I would not want my son to miss out on blowjobs because of a decision I made. When he starts missing out on blowjobs because he got married, well, that's all his decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
I had my kid's done.
But I couldn't get my doggie's ears cut... how cruel.
my wife thinks they are gross, btw... (ones not done).
I never thought of it as a religious thing.
Just do it. Babies don't remember anything.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfAGun
So it's ok to beat a baby too, since they won't remember it.
Seems like a weird argument.
"It's BARBARIC !!"
http://www.thesocialcentre.com/images/kramer2.jpg
It's an ambiguous gender name actually. And it's Irish, as I am. It was either that or Brady.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4cc
Oooh man this will draw out more heated debate than one would imagine.
My wife and I decided not to do so for either of our boys. (3 and 6 yrs)
Looking back now, subjecting them to the procedure would have been needlessly cruel, and we do not regret the decision in the slightest.
They are just fine, happy and healthy.
I figure if they ever grow up and really want to do the procedure themselves, they are free to do so, but it seems to be a decision for them, and not for us to make.
Just my 2 cents.
Good to know. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I wouldn't do it, or support any other cosmetic surgery.