Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health +1 y
Are you planning on having your baby boy circumcised? Why?
bubble_tea Guru
Curious, if the numbers are going to change in the near future.
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Updates:
+1 y
I didn't think 'aesthetics' would be the biggest reason for some.. apologies for not including that one in the poll.
+1 y
Sorry, forgot to include the numbers in the map I saw when I posted this question.
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...e_at_Country_Level.png
upload.wikimedia.org/.../...e_at_Country_Level.png
+1 y
thanks everyone for participating in the poll and comment section! it was tough to choose MHO.
1 1
What Girls & Guys Said
53 55Unless there are legitimate medical reasons, this is a decision that only the boy himself (once he is an adult) should make.
I don't know, for that I'll let my husband decide... or maybe I'll decide once I get there and have more info on it
My post has a lot of info. Even of mothers who regretted having decided on circumcision...
www.mothering.com/.../...n-s-please-post-here.html
Regardless of these anticirc abuse mongerers say, it is not child abuse, nor is it wrong. There are medical benefits to it, thus why it is now covered under most insurance plans. It is much, MUCH more sanitary, firstly. Secondly, there is extensive medical research that shows that there is a higher percentage of people who get sti's, and HIV that are uncircumcised, as opposed to those who are. It is also a religious standpoint.
It's a religious standpoint to cut off the girl's clitoris is well. Shall we chop away?
@greycadillacs and social too, saying that "but if we don't do it then they won't be able to find a husband". The westerns say, "but if we don't do it then they won't be able to find a girlfriend". Seems familiar?
Why cut off skin when the guy can just WASH HIS D! CK! And a dry practically calloused circumcised d! ck head causes abrasion inside the vagina. This causes less enjoyment for the woman and the guy has to thrust harder because his cut d! ck can only now feel 70% of the sexual pleasure because of circumcision. And abrasion in the vagina leads to greater STI contraction from man to woman.
You three are an interesting trio. If you used lube, or your body produced enough on it's own, it wouldn't chafe. It will regardless of a cut or non cut penis. Dummy.
at least use a mention when you're talking to people. @bluexqueen he is talking to you
@Mesonfielde is that better douchebag?
Did you know that the reason why the western medical committee supports circumcision so vehemently with studies that hold no merit nor value, is because they can sell the foreskin to create cosmetic products out of it? They get a whole bunch of cash for it. Foreskin is not cheap, as kids don't grow on trees, and they don't regrow the foreskin themselves either.
Here's a newsflash @mesonfielde, we kept both of our sons. My wife did anyways. They do not sell them, that is human waste and it is illegal, unless you sign a release of interest. It is also supported because of the medical benefits, and your religious views. I know that in my Bible, God clearly instructed that all men of the Jewish faith would circumcise. That rolled over into the followers of Christ.
"That rolled over into the followers of Christ." The new testament claimed that you need to follow Christ, and not the old testament. This is just rationalization.
@Mesonfielde, what do you really know of Christianity? Like honestly, actually studied it as it should be studied for learning, not as an argument tool?
Ehh whatever. You can enjoy your 70% of pleasure. But why deny a whopping 100% to your son?
@bluexqueen because he's not planning to do it for his son, he's doing it for his own ego. You can't really talk to a brick wall and expect them to comprehend reason.
@mesonfielde, how exactly is me circumcising my son for my ego? Stupid fuck.
There are two reasons and some extra underlying motive why people in the West circumcise their kids: 1.) believing the cultural misconceptions about foreskin, and think it causes untreatable diseases and disgusting smells and it's hard to clean and whatever, and its removal decreases the possible complications during the early stages of life. NOTE: I have provided enough evidence that these claims are false on multiple posts around here. 2.) Because as the Westerns think it looks better (and that's what they grow up with as it is prominent because they think it looks better because it's prominent - yes, it is circular, thanks), and with that, they choose it for others merely to adhere to the social standards. BUT some people often do it merely to prove that their body was NOT "violated against their will", so if it happens to their son, then there is nothing wrong with them. AND also they believe it is okay to make permanent, life-changing decisions for their children
way before they themselves can make a decision themselves.
@mesonfielde do you feel the same about vaccines they give children?
The kid doesn't have the choice
@rjroy3 I have heard that argument before, and it is not a valid one. Vaccines do not cause any irreversible external changes in the human body with numerous additional possible risk factors, the only physical aspect is a tiny needle going into the body. It has no permanent physical effects. Circumcision essentially removes a part of the body. Vaccines don't.
@mesonfielde that's correct but vaccines add to the body. It's a small dose of the sickness. They ar infecting the child. And it's not reversible. Once it's in the body it is on there. You can try another medication to counteract it, but that would still be doing something to the babies body without their consent. Why not wait till the baby is sick? The vaccine is unnecessary. So it is valid. You don't NEED the vaccine as a child
@rjroy3 those viruses are weakened versions. They are added to the body so that the body will learn of them and create the necessary antibodies that are necessary to remove them. If they didn't do that, these viruses would be lethal. Once the body defeats the viruses, they are removed from the system by the immune Nt Circumcision is done to prevent conditions that are either STDs (protection via condom is an alternative), or inflammation and infection (treatable by antibiotics). Also, circumcision doesn't prevent them, it decreases the risk of it. It is not even a reliable protection method.
Immune system, and the alteration is therefore not permanent. Also worth noting that this is what keeps the epidemics in check in the first place.
@mesonfielde Yes that is how vaccines work. But.. they are still putting the child through temporary pain from both the needle and the symptoms of the sickness, even if it's not full blown the sickness still occurs. But again if the child isn't already sick, it is not vital that he gets the vaccine. It's just extra money on medicine he might never need in the first place. Circumcision is reliable prevention for inflammation, not STD's. Even at a basic conceptual level this makes sense. It's the same way a rash forms on the groin between the thighs, from sweat and walking around throughout the day. Those glands sweat and it can cause problems just like you can get a rash in a day. This goes back to my initial argument of, little boys are not anal about their cleanliness and more often than not will not clean thoroughly enough for even simple parts. Such as the nether region, armpits, feet, behind the ears. Anyone who has a a little boy will tell you that
@rjroy3 I never had rashes like that so you're clearly doing something wrong, lol. Case in point though: inflammations are treatable with antibiotics. Circumcision as such is unnecessary. The vaccines prevent lethal diseases that cannot be cured in any other way, or have other major complications. To be honest, my bronchial tubes get infected and get inflammated every year. I haven't had them removed to prevent this. If there's one thing that people remove to prevent its inflammation, it's the appendix. But if you don't get that treated by removing it when it gets inflammated, you can die. You don't need to cut off the penis when there's an inflammation at the glans, heh. But seriously, comparing rashes to the plague seems somewhat farfetched.
@rjroy3 anyways, vaccines don't cause any external permanent differences in the human body, and the conditions that have *reduced risks* due to circumcision are easily treatable and not life-threatening. Anything else?
@mesonfielde it's not all the time lo. But is common for people to get a small skin rash between the legs from rubbing together all day long on top of the sweating. Hot climates run into that problem more than others. I'd be shocked if you haven't experienced it once in your life. Everyone I know has at least once lol. Yes the symptoms can be treated. But this is a circular argument. If you are not sick, you don't need a vaccine. Period. Once you have a sickness, take meds to treat the condition then because at that point it is actually necessary to do so. There's no guarantee the kid will ever get the sickness. Circumcision is also unnecessary in that you don't absolutely need it, to prevent problems. But it is a prevention tool. You can try to reason that it's different because you're taking something away, but it is similar because you are still making a permanent change to the body. You are just adding instead of taking away.
@mesonfielde I'm comparing inflammation to the common cold, your mind fills in the gap. They have boosters/vaccines whatever for everything. It's farfetched to compare cutting off your dick, to removing a bit of skin that is non essential.
@rjroy3 indeed, but in this case you are taking something *external* which also has functionalities in the body. That's the key difference, and the point behind why you shouldn't rip someone of something that is theirs and will never be able to get back. Also, the sicknesses you get vaccines for are potentially lethal, hence why you need the vaccines to prevent them.
@rjroy3 that's the point. It's not non-essential. It has functionalities, it serves a purpose. Numerous, in fact. Keeping the glans moist, maintaining proper pH value, protection from external harm.
@mesonfielde there is however permanent internal change. You speak of the superficial layer as if it's the only one of importance. Big picture is that neither is necessary but there are benefits to them. If you are religiously against one, it would make sense to be against the other. There are kids that grow up without getting vaccines and they are completely healthy. Didn't catch any diseases. It would have served nothing more than getting them sick in early life. They would have had no say in the matter. If you care about the child having his right to make all decisions about his body, why does it not apply to what goes into his body?
@mesonfielde foreskin can potentially cause infection. There is function in having it, but it's weighing it's purpose vs the problems that come demand having it. Some sickness have potential to be lethal, but it's also no guarantee that you will catch it and that even if you do whether or not it will be lethal. Because we have the medications to treat them. Vaccines are just preeminent, like circumcision. It's all about preventing problems. But the function of foreskin protecting it from harm is obsolete since we wear clothes now
@rjroy3 It's all a matter of balancing pros and cons. Vaccines: - pros: prevention of potentially lethal diseases, no permanent external change of any kind - cons: nothing Circumcision: - pros: decreased risk (note: not prevention, not immunity) to certain treatable diseases with common medicine such as inflammation, decreased risk of contracting diseases that can be prevented by not having sex with people whom are infected while wearing a condom is a more effective prevention method, less likely to neglect hygiene in case you're retarded and an irresponsible idiot - cons: causes irreparable damage to the integrity of the penis, removes protection of glans from external harm, possibility of bleeding to death or catching infection as infant and dying, dried out glans, possible painful erections, potentially ruins development of the penis during growth, potentially ruins future sex life by making sex and masturbation painful
@rjroy3 clothes are also interacting with the glans. The foreskin is there to protect it even from that type of external stimulus. And the foreskin is still responsible for keeping your glans from being dried out.
@mesonfielde you refuse to see the cons vaccines have, because you pass them off as manageable. A con is a con even if you have options to take care of them. And the over arching point that the child isn't given the choice to decide what happens inside or outside his body is ludacris. If you believe A: the child has a right to what happens to his body. Then you must agree with B: because vaccines affect the child's body, he must be given the choice to decide for himself whether or not he wants it. You can reason, "well vaccines are for his benefit! ". We'll people who circumsized their kids all felt the same way. You just disagree that circumcision is best.
@rjroy3 there is a major decision between adding a substance to the body versus removing a part of the body.
@mesonfielde I'm assuming you meant to say major difference. And yes it is different, different but similar and therefore not major. But that doesn't change the fact that if you believe it's the child's right to what happens to his body, which includes inside and out. Then you must say the same for vaccines. Otherwise, you don't actually believe he has the right to decide for himself
@mesonfielde yes, I do feel that I have the right to make permanent life changing decisions for my children. They don't have that ability yet, so that falls on my wife and I to make those decisions. You obviously have a complex about not being circumcised, and you're trying to feel better about yourself, and to boost your self esteem. You do this by using Wikipedia, which is very reliable, by the way ha, to support your argument. Stupid.
@TrueblueInfantry @rjroy3 I shouldn't even NEED to use anything to support my argument on what is morally wrong about taking a part of someone else's body for their entire lifetime. You could just read why there are so many people on this website who oppose to it, I'm not the only one who says that it's not something you should choose for *someone else*. I've said it before - circumcision stays with you from the age of day 10 to the very end of your life, what if you don't want it when you can actually make a choice? You're fucked.
@mesonfielde if you believe it's the child's right to what happens to his body, which includes inside and out. Then you must say the same for vaccines. Otherwise, you don't actually believe he has the right to decide for himself
@mesonfielde And yes you do need info to back up what you say. If a kid had cancer in his body, it's the parents job to tell the doctor to cut out the cancer tissue. So what what you said is not the end all be all
@rjroy3 there is also a difference between treating an existing lethal condition versus 'decreasing the risk' of a 'nonexistent' and 'non-lethal' condition
@mesonfielde if you believe it's the child's right to what happens to his body, which includes inside and out. Then you must say the same for vaccines. Otherwise, you don't actually believe he has the right to decide for himself.
@rjroy3 I've said it before and I'll say it again, the diseases that circumcision reduces its risks of are already rare, or can be prevented in other ways, and the conditions can be treated by antibiotics. Vaccinations do not cause any deficits of any kind (you won't start missing a part of you because you were pierced by a needle in order to 100% prevent lethal and airborne viral infections that you can't treat in any other way. Aka, you get those conditions - you're dead. There is a major difference here. Mostly that you do not suffer any deficits as a result of the procedure. ... sigh... why is it so hard to explain this to people. @CommieDearest @OrionRose I'd like to ask for assistance here.
I'm not really sure what I can provide that you haven't. Haha. It's plastic surgery. Like others have pointed out, we don't remove the appendix of every infant so they don't get appendicitis later.
@mesonfielde I understand what you're saying, but there's studies that show kids who have series of vaccinations are more likely to be born or develop a certain level of autism. That's why an overwhelming majority of kids with the condition are military children that had to get extra vaccines for going overseas. My brother being one of them. Vaccines do make permanent changes to the body (not implying everyone will get autism). The change on the chemical level is irreversible. The concept alone is permanent change. And there are known negative effects from vaccines. You ignored them all in your cons. But again, if your reasoning for why circumcision is wrong is because it should be the child's decision. Why does it not apply to the inside of the human body. Again, there is absolutely no guarantee the kid will ever contract any sickness the vaccines are for. And if they ever do, we have meds for them when they do. At that point it's necessity
@commiedearest If you can give am answer to that, I'd love to hear one. Because mesonfielde refuses to and just says "there's a difference between them" when the core value of them both are the same thing. The child's choice of what happens to the body
@rjoy3 Not vaccinating your child is bad for society, the risk of an adverse reaction to a vaccine is nominal compared to the impact of infectious diseases. It's an actual public health issue. Circumcision only effects the individual.
@rjroy3 my PRIMARY reason for why circumcision is technically *evil* is because it causes permanent and irreversible external physical damage to the male genitalia by *definition* of what it is, with the possibility of causing a myriad of problems such as painful erections, for near-zero benefits other than decreasing the risk of preventable and curable conditions. Like, what?
@commiedearest But we already have medicine for infections outside of vaccine. Vaccines are preemptive, but not the only medicine for disease. Why not wait until if you actually get the sickness. It's only a chance to get it at all. And if the vaccine is working, then those who took the vaccine already won't catch it and those that do can just go get the medications they need. So the fact that vaccines aren't absolutely necessary leaves to question, why does the child not have have the option to choose for itself? Especially since there are studies that show vaccines could be the cause of different mental health conditions.
@rjoy3 because causing an epidemic is irresponsible, and not the kind of irresponsible that only hurts YOU
@mesonfielde The risk is very low. And it prevents infections and inflammation. Yes you are making an irreversible change, to avoid a future problem. Which is exactly the concept of vaccines. I'm making an irreversible change, to avoid future problems. But it's ok, because it's for the child's benefits. Circumcision has the same argument. The real differences is one is internal, the other external. And one "can" pass on to other people. But on top of that, there areal studies to show that vaccines dont even work. That they induce sickness, but doesn't stop the child from catching the very disease
@rjroy3 you clearly seem to have no idea about how weakened viruses are added to the body to create the necessary antibodies for the body to be capable of fighting the disease if it's contracted, rather than be overwhelmed by the real version. Also, I've read in numerous places that the "vaccines cause autism" study has been debunked numerous times. It might have the same argument, but it's a shitty argument. Vaccines actually prevent lethal conditions. Circumcision decreases the risk but does not prevent non-lethal conditions - while these conditions are also treatable and mostly preventable. I've said this numerous times now. Circumcision is unnecessary. That's why people in Europe don't do it. They do it in the USA for financial gain and profit.
@mesonfielde there are studies that disagree with vaccines effect in mental conditions, but they did not debunk them. And you seem to have trouble understanding that someone completely understands a concept but disagrees with you. Yes I understand how immunities work. Having an immunity is better than a full blown disease. There is much research to show that just because you got vaccinated that you will not catch said disease. Just look up how many cases people got vaccinated and got sick anyways. And I don't know how you can make comment like that about circumcision when there is Phimosis and Paraphimosis. That sounds like a highly possible con, that circumcised patients never suffer without loss of quality of life.
@rjroy3 if you have phimosis, then get treated for phimosis. But I don't see the point in treating people for phimosis when they don't have the condition. That's like removing your tonsils without them even being inflammated. They do that only if there is no better alternative, why is it different with foreskin? It's just as invasive, and as I've stated before, the foreskin is a protective layer from external harm as is said by following study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302
@mesonfielde Why not settle the problem before it's a huge risk than wait till it's hurting the child and causing problems that can be much more serious? (Vaccine argument you used earlier)
@rjroy3 The severe phimosis you speak about is a rare condition. Phimosis in general can be treated with stretching ( https://www.circumcisionquotes.com/stretching.html ), circumcision is the *final* solution if nothing else works. You really are claiming that it'd be more reasonable to remove everyone's tonsils merely so that there won't be a chance of them to cause a problem.
@mesonfielde I think you don't like the fact you have to accept my argument in order to back your own, but you don't want to. strep throat is a fairly rare event for most people and the likely hoof of it being reoccurring enough for tonsil removal is slim. Causes for phimosis will happen daily and many babies are born with it. And they are likely to get it many times in their life. And after money spent treating it for years, it will either lead to circumcision or have become more expensive in the long run anyways I'm not referring to severe phimosis, I'm referring to all forms of Phimosis and the fact that any pulling back of the foreskin can cause mild phimosis is a problem. Paraphimosis is much more common than the severe version you're talking about. And a much more frequent event that need to be treated for life. So saying circumcision avoids problems. It's not problems you might run into, it's pretty much guaranteed you will. Circumcision makes sense
But alas. I need sleep. I'll respond to whatever sometime tomorrow or the day after
@rjroy3 The only time I personally had trouble with retracting my foreskin was when I was being a dumbass as a 7 years old and stopped washing under the foreskin for like a month. I had that one coming. Urologist fixed it in a jiffy. Still wouldn't want to be circumcised. By maintaining proper hygiene, I haven't had any problem with it since.
@rjroy3 Vaccinations actually do prevent the condition. Circumcision reduces the risk. Read the data yourself: pediatrics.aappublications.org/.../...ull.pdf+html
@mesonfielde Prevents the problem, and reduces the risk are the same thing mesonfielde. But I'm glad you brought up your personal experience, because that goes along with one of my earlier statements that little boys are likely to not be thorough about their cleaning and because of that they will likely have problems if uncircumcised. You experienced just that. I'm not saying that being uncircumcised is silly and that you're wrong not to have it removed, because the foreskin does have purpose. I'm merely saying there are valid reasons for getting your child circumsized early one. One big one being the likelihood of Phimosis. That is a very real concern, yes you can treat it but that doesn't make it not a concern. I think it's fair to say that it should be the parents decision for their kid. Circumcized penises are less hassle, zero chance of Phimosis and (possibly but not proven) prevents urinary tract infections. You cannot in good conscience deny those pros.
@rjroy3 "Prevents the problem, and reduces the risk are the same thing mesonfielde. " Not true, otherwise they'd just circumcise everyone rather than use condoms. Condoms are better for STD prevention, yet people make it out to be an argument *for* circumcision. Most people choose circumcision merely because of their cultural bias that claims "it looks better". That really just depends on where you grew up and what you saw in p*rn and what is more common, and whether you've actually seen the natural human body early enough that it doesn't seem "weird". That doesn't really justify making the choice for someone else - as Commie says, "circumcision is plastic surgery". The foreskin can't initially be retracted, only later. I personally had to learn for myself that it's necessary, but as I said, I was 7 by that time. The reason why it is not fair to say it is the parent's decision is because it is irreversible and stays with you for life, and can have countless negatives.
If they slice off too much foreskin, the penis doesn't develop properly. While the scars are healing, there is a HIGHER risk of infection, even possible death. Due to excess bleeding, there is a risk of death. If there isn't enough foreskin, erections can be painful - which sucks because your penis is erect throughout the night every REM cycle which would disturb your sleep. If even erection is painful, then what about sex? That will be terrible as well. Look at the comment below on 'botched circumcision', the risks are ridiculous in comparison to "if we don't cut it off, then there is a chance for obtaining a curable condition".
@mesonfielde Comprehension and my understanding of the English language. Prevents the problem = reduces risk. That's just book definition. They are the same. Again, I'm referring to your reasoning. There is restoration of the foreskin so it is reversible to an extent, and there is a higher chance of a baby being born with phimosis than complications from circumcision having any negative effects. A much higher chance. Problems from circumcision gone wrong is negligible numbers. They are so few
@rjroy3 yes... negligible, like infant death. Heh. Okay, we are arguing semantics. It does not provide immunity, then. The key difference between vaccination is that it actually provides *immunity*.
@mesonfielde I 80% agree with you on that. Yes vaccines provide immunity. But, there are known botched attempts where the vaccine didn't work. For whatever reason their body didn't create the immunity and only ended up getting sick and later catching full blown diseases. Because those cases show that vaccines are not 100% guaranteed to work for everyone, that risk makes it not exempt from the risk vs reward
@rjroy3 fair enough. But the most important difference is that the supposed "health benefits" of 'preventing STDs' is not relevant until someone actually starts having sex, which at the earliest is at age 13, but probably more-so 16-17. Meaning, for its intended purposes, they could have waited 13 years with the procedure and by that time the child actually kinda can tell if they want to not have a foreskin or not (although I don't see why anyone would want to choose to get a part of them being strpped away, but alas - it IS their body).
@mesonfielde With regards to STD's yes, but dealing with the risk of Phimosis will still be there along with infections. Yes they can be treated and yes it can be prevented by other means, but you avoid them with circumcision and if you want restoration later for sexual purposes you can. They don't have sex until they're older anyways
@rjroy3
www.patient.co.uk/doctor/phimosis-and-paraphimosis
Phimosis results when the prepuce is tight and is unable to be pulled forward over the glans. This is often the result of chronic infection caused by poor hygiene.
Severe phimosis is quite rare in young children and can be demonstrated by bulging of the foreskin during micturition. It should be remembered that circumcision is not the only option and preputioplasty can also be performed (this preserves the prepuce). Acquired phimosis occurs because of:
Poor hygiene
Chronic balanitis
Repetitive forceful retraction of foreskin
Circumcision
Minor complications include:
Haemorrhage
Local infection
Meatal stenosis
Secondary phimosis (especially in babies with a hernia or large hydrocele)
Adhesions or skin bridge joining the penile shaft and glans
More severe complications include:
Septicaemia
Removal of end of the penis
Removal of too much foreskin
Urethrocutaneous fistula
Problems with sexual function have been reported,
@mesonfielde Phimosis also occurs when the skin can't be pulled passed the glands, not allowing the baby to pee. I'm talking about the likelihood of either occurring. Phimosis is common occurrence at young ages. Complications from circumcision is a rare occurrence
There is no such thing as hygienic reasons. Its to remove the foreskin that actually protects from infections and stuff. He should only have a procedure done if there is a medical reason, some boys have trouble to pee.
Religious reasons, what's new? I suppose hurting the baby is saintly.
Its disgusting parents to decide on what the genitals should look like. It is wrong and did you know many doctors nowadays are declining unless there is a medical reason.
I didn't know that.. but in that case, they shouldn't even if they don't agree with the parents IMO. They took an oath to protect their patients. It's safer for the baby if it's performed by a doctor than some illegal backyard practitioner that knows half as much as a doc about anatomy. You and I know that if people want something badly, they will always find a way.
But why would they get an illegal backyard practitioner to do it when even the doctors say it's unnecessary? Are they stupid?
Yes there is darkness to it. There are still legal doctors doing it but many are saying no. And yes if people want something badly they will do it!.
Shows how crazy the circumcision advocates are. This is not about the "health of their child" at all. I guess this is a perfect instance of brainwashing.
Yes. Both reasons above, but also because pagans and feminists whine about it being an institution of the patriarchy.
And when they are annoyed, it pleases me to no small degree.
:-)
So you would mutilate your own children in order to prove a point to arbitrary groups? I feel bad for your future children. You don't even care about their lives, apparently.
If it annoys pagans and feminists, it can't be a bad thing. In fact, in light of that, it becomes near saintly. I love Abraham. He's my hero. I'm so Patriarchy. It can't be wrong when it feels so right. :-)
@Mesonfielde are you a feminist? lol
With that logic, you can justify the holocaust.
@Mesonfielde O_O I was just kidding
@Mesonfielde so pagan? lmao
I'm neither a feminist (well, technically I like the idea of the erasure of gender roles, and the idea of gender neutrality; but that's as far as it goes) nor a pagan. I just don't see the purpose in aimless mutilation of others with no tangible benefit other than, apparently, to piss other people off.
@Mesonfielde ah, I thought you said my logic justifies the holocaust O_O yeah, his reasons sound even worse than 'because it looks prettier'
It's up to my husband. Who at this point looks like he wants them circumcised, if we have boys.
... www.foreskin-restoration.net/.../showthread.php
Think about your actions wisely.
No I am not planning on joining the genital mutilation club. Hygeine has nothing to do with it--you can be uncut and very clean as long as you wash. It's very easy.
Circumcision is about as dumb as cutting the folds off a vagina for the sake of cleanliness.
Cutting off some skin isn't such a big deal
@qwazihomo maybe not to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to anyone in the world, otherwise foreskin restoration would not be a thing
www.mothering.com/.../...ircumcised-post-here.html
I'm circumcised and I'd rather be than not. Growing up I always heard that girls thought uncircumcised dicks were gross looking. I live in America so maybe it's because it's normal here.
So you would have your son circumcized because of what the girls say? Umm, what if their opinion on a hooded penis changes? Would you still do it?
Well I heard it was more hygienic. While that may or may not be true, that's what I've heard growing up. So it's normal here in America to be circumcised. So I'd say ya
Please note that's a myth and not actually true: www.psychologytoday.com/.../more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds
I had two girls, so I didn't have to make that decision, but my wife and I had agreed to not circumcise a son if we had one.
respect +10
thanks for sharing your opinion :)
Nope. When he's a little baby, I cleaned the foreskin for me and when he's a little older, I'll show him how to clean it. He'll get to enjoy what was removed from me.
Typos lol. I'll clean the foreskin for him.
No, for pleasure. A man has more pleasure if he has a foreskin than if he doesn't. I have my foreskin and I'm glad I have.
Unless he has any problems with it, I don't plan on having my kid circumcised.
I'm just going to cut his knob off altogether. Saves him from the evils of masturbation.
Sounds like sarcasm
i will NEVER NEVER NEVER have kids!!!
Okay but that wasn't what the question asked.
@musicbrain5 so to answer the question my answer is no. the reason... i explained above LOL
seems its a even take.
I wonder if anyone of who said no did ask a doctor I mean professional doctor before he answer or say it's hurting a child anyway am so tired of religion talk here -_- what ever and who ever do what you want am done for expelling and done for try to make u understand so yeah done done done...
I'm sorry to hear, but this is not about religion. If you vote, you will see it's more about hygiene or aesthetics for most people.
I know but some people here did turned it to religion stuff look sister I would advice you to do it for your son not because it's religion thing no but because it's healthy for him and if you don't believe my talk ask a doctor professional doctor this question : does circumcise hurt a child? if he said yes so don't ever believe me or believe any talk come from my mouth.. don't depend on people talk here everyone who answer you will just confuse you so just cut it and go to doctor it's better for you and for your son to be sure what are you doing or what can't do.. it's just an advice and am sorry for being kinda mean..
It is the same group of Aholes who are obsessed about asking the same type of questions everyday couple of days to keep their debate going. I would rather love to see them grow some ballz and not ask them under anon. One think is for sure they want to kill time since they are jobless.
"because it's healthy for him" Explain that to the kids who bled to death because of it.
Yes, that is unfortunate. I am sorry for that. I would never try to change the religion or traditions of others. @Maazin
@Mesonfielde looks like you had a lucky escape. Avoid hanging out or else they might catch hold of ya and do something more than circumcision.
If that been doing by a professional wouldn't cause dead -_- so yeah it' doesn't kill but it does give god healthy for men just ask a doctor am not telling you to ask Imame or any religious men am asking telling you to ask professionals.. @Mesonfielde
... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw24j0Litlc
@Mesonfielde David Reimer (birth name Bruce) was born an identical twin in Winnipeg, Manitoba. At 6 months of age both boys were mistakenly diagnosed with phimosis, a natural condition of the infant penis. The so-called doctor Jean-Marie Huot botched the first circumcision completely destroying Bruce's penis. Twin Brian's circumcision was canceled; he made a full recovery from his "condition" of phimosis, without further treatment. did you read this?
@Mesonfielde that was a doctor mistake so don't put all professionals in the same Libra -_-
Uh-huh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLcdFZNID6s
I don't want to start an argument or anything, I am just giving my input. I thought all babies were circumcised. Maybe it is because my parents grew up in religions families. Idk, I really didn't know that they didn't have to be and I have really enjoyed being educated by reading these opinions on both sides. Thank you for giving me something to think about.
Not here to start an argument either. I was only interested in how the numbers (of the link to the map) are going to turn out. But of course such a hot topic will attract passionate people from both sides. -.- anyway, I'm glad we (or rather they) have taught you something that sex-ed at school should have covered.
haha well people are always going to fight for what they believe no matter what side they are on. But I feel like most of the commenters on here enjoyed the debates lol. It is nice to see people asking things that don't have to do with sex or rating people
LOL ya think? I wouldn't enjoy getting attacked for my beliefs and being forced to defend them which is why I asked anonymous at first. Agree with last sentence.
A lot of people on here are saying no and I don't understand why everyone thinks it's harmful to a little boy. I think a lot of people on here don't have kids cause now like they have been for about 10 + years use a rubber band. It only takes a few weeks till the skin falls off and was easy to maintain. Even doctors at hospitals will tell you it's highly recommended. I didn't want my son to be cercomcised at first but after talking with the doctor we did. And we had no problem with it. Now there was one other person we knew that did it and did have problems but from my understanding they don't pay much attention to there child. I'm going to have to look at a poll on the internet to find out the % of people in the world
The problem is that people don't seem to understand the weight of a *permanent and irreversible* decision. Most doctors are biased either because they were circumcised as children themselves (and they need to assert to themselves that the choice done to them was correct), and circumcision procedure is extra money for the hospitals. Most reasons behind the recommendation are forged or irrelevant - they use circumcision in Africa as an STD preventuon measure because it is "more cost-effective in its risks than using a condom". Aka, they do it because they cannot afford safe sex. In the west, that is not a problem. The hygiene claims are untrue, uncircumcised penises don't take much more effort to maintain, if you can afford showering daily or every two days. And in kids, the circumcised version needs extra care as urine and feces in the diaper can cause infections and irritation of the urethra. Basically, circumcision's benefits are irrelevant, but its risks are not.
Are you a doctor? I don't think they have doctors on gag. So until you get a doctors degree and become a professional stop trying to chage everyone else's mind. people are going to make there own choices and your input won't stop them. Probably the only real reason everyone Isn't circomcised now is because the vast magi ritzy can't afford to spens another $400 when there son is born.
I can only speak for European docs, and here, no doc will recommend it for your baby. People who do it here, do it for religious reasons, or only if there is a 'immediate medical reason/deformity'. I don't want to make you worry, but I read US docs recommend it be able to charge more for their 'birth work', so they mostly recommend it to people who have the money/insurance to pay it (middle-class, upper class).
Yup that's what I'm saying, mostly poor people are uncercomcised
Are you saying Europeans are poor?
o_____O
In general European people are poor, I'm not gonna say everyone but the population is, same thing here in the United States but people can afford $400 here or a few thousand. We're over there the general public cannot
en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_countries_by_GNI_%28nominal,_Atlas_method%29_per_capita
My country is above yours, and we still don't do it. I just bought an Apple notebook. Trust me when I say it has nothing to do with not affordable or affordable. Everyone in western Europe has health insurance (even if their GNI is below yours) but not everyone in the US does. So your reason applies to the US only.
European money is worth more but as far as gas and oil we are above. I've been having a MacBook for like 5 years, what does that have to do with it?
Hey look a here
www.businessinsider.com/35-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2014-7
Just we don't care about militaries doesn't mean we have no money. It's the same about shelling out bucks for circumcision. We just don't think it's worth it, owning (maybe overpriced) Apple stuff is worth it. That's what my example is about. Anyway, if you must believe we're poorer to explain the circumcision discrepancy, you can, I won't argue anymore. :)
Finally😃😃😃😃😃😃😃
Of course they recommend the procedure. You pay 400$ for it. If I was a salesman, I wouldn't tell you to not buy something I can charge you for, lol.
They don't make that
They do, check it out: www.icgi.org/information/cost-of-circumcisions/
Why don't you run for president and change it then? Or even better start an online partition and get enough signatures to stop it if you are so against it?
Because I'm not a USA resident at all? I'm European. To go for presidency in the USA, you have to be a USA resident, I think you actually have to have been born there.
Obama seemed to do a pretty good job.
oh you're one of those. it explains everything.
this simple 10 question test should interest you. edition.cnn.com/.../
Yes simple answer
Yes and no. My mom always told me it depends on the doctor. I honestly don't care but I'd prefer the boy to not be circumcised.
If a doctor chopped off parts of the penis of my child without my consent and scar them for life, I'd beat him up even if I get jailed for it - and it'd still be insufficient "repayment" for what they did.
(as beating someone up doesn't cause permanent damage :p)
I don't care either way. I can say that GAG is the only place where I've encountered men who have a serious problem with circumcision.
is this the only place where you encounter and chat with foreigners from all over the world?
Yes, it actually is, believe it or not. Obviously I've talked with foreigners elsewhere but I've never gotten into this topic with them.
well.. for most europeans it is legal mutilation, because it's not a common procedure over here. some north americans think it's because we can't afford it, but this really is not the case. anyway.. yes, circumcision is not a small talk topic.. so you usually won't talk about it IRL whether you oppose it or not.
True. I'm surrounded by way more Americans than foreigners on a daily basis anyway. I've also never met anyone that I knew for a fact was uncut. So yeah, it's the norm over here.