Should baby boys be circumcised?

I want to discuss circumcision with you all. Should baby boys be circumcised? Or is it cruel to do when they're too young? Should we wait until they're older? Is it more cruel to make them go through it later? Should we do it for God? Should they do it for the extra feeling at the nerve endings? Should women get circumcised too?
Updates:
+1 y
So if this was originally done to prevent masturbation. Did it work?
0 3

Most Helpful Guys

  • 1.

    If the parents are too shy about genitals to teach their boys to wash themselves, kids should absolutely be circumcised.

    If a kid is taught how to wash his penis, it is unneeded in 90% of cases.

    In case of phimosis, it is a necessity.

    It is helpful against "snapping the banjo string" link

    2.

    It will be less intrusive when done on a newborn, as Americans and Jews do than when done at 6 or 7, as Muslims do or at 12 or so as some tribes do (beginning of "manhood" )

    3.

    No god can have foreskins as preoccupation (or he would be a gay pedo LOL). You can safely assume no god is interested. Worshippers do it. This is what some Christians think about it: link Bible references included.

    4.

    It will rather dumb nerve endings on the penis head ( from frothing against underwear with an uncovered glans -Latin word for head of penis )

    5.

    Women should only get circumcised by a surgeon in extremely rare cases: when the clitoris hood is so large it covers the clit completely and blocks her from having orgasms and when smegma builds up under it. this is extremely rare: maybe 1/100

    all other kinds of female circumcision are Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in different degrees, aimed at prohibiting girls and women from obtaining orgasm, thus lowering their sex drive.

    There is one widespread exception: a little needle prick in the clit hood, giving one tiny drop of blood, leaving the girl intact just enough to tell to the family that "it" has been done and comply with local habits, because female circumcision is NOT prescribed by the Qu'ran, it is a pure geographically bound practice with religion as an excuse for the illiterate.

    The Mufti of Cairo, one of the highest Muslim authorities emitted a fatwa against it.

    Female circumcision was practised on limited scale in America against masturbation an hysteria. Kellogg advocated it :

    _____

    In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. ”

    He also recommended, to prevent children from this "solitary vice", bandaging or tying their hands, covering their genitals with patented cages, sewing the foreskin shut and electrical shock.[5]

    link

    _______

    In the US, FGM WAS paid for by a health insurance plan (Red Shield Blue Cross) until the seventies.

    There were others like him, in Europe too (I know of a GP who proposed FGM in the fifties, in Europe)

    • Yet again I have to correct this lie - it is NOT necessary to circumcise as a result of phimosis (tight foreskin). In 90% of cases, phimosis can be cured by simple stretching. Phimosis also can't be diagnosed until after puberty, as before this age, the foreskin is MEANT to be tight and this is totally healthy. The foreskin is fused to the glans in childhood, making infant circumcision MORE intrusive and more painful, as well as more likely to go wrong. Adult circumcision has fewer risks.

    • Phimosis can be diagnosed quite early and treated by stretching but if it isn't diagnosed it will possibly lead to balanitis : link

      That's why circumcision was introduced, thousands of years ago. IMHO it's not necessary if the parents learn their son how to cope with a tight foreskin but how many parents would even speak about the subject? Not many, I fear.

  • Of all the questions I have seen recently, this one really is quite disturbing. Very disturbing for the fact that you are trying to say that Jehovah would approve of this. I`ll keep this short:

    This

    Is

    Madness

    • I am just throwing out the question. It is a popular cultural thing for people to circumcise their boys in the name of God. I agree, it is madness.

    • Trust me, circumcision is totally unnecessary and just a stupid old world practice. I am glad that I am uncircumcised. If some girl has problem with that, I don't care. I don't want to do anything with any girl who wants my penis mutilated.

    • I agree. I wish they would stop mutilating the bodies we were given to begin with. :)

Most Helpful Girls

  • if you wait til you're older than you'll remember all the pain! why on earth would you wanna do that? o.O

    My boyfriend was never circumcised, but that's because he was born in Germany...God told Abraham...I think it was Abraham...yeah pretty sure it was him...to Circumcise future generations and well, Hitler didn't take to kindly to the Jews...hence the Holocaust. So they do not Circumcise in Germany. bahahaha.

    I hear there's greater pleasure when there is no circumcision...oh baby. ;]

    Also it's a hygiene issue. You're more likely to get infection down under when you're not circumcised.

    Female circumcision is complete nonsense. There is no purpose to it unless you believe females should not enjoy sexual activity! SEX IS NOT BAD! The bible even says so too for those prude Christians out there who believe so. =]

    Proverbs 5:18-19 (New Living Translation)

    18 Let your wife be a fountain of blessing for you.

    Rejoice in the wife of your youth.

    19 She is a loving deer, a graceful doe.

    Let her breasts satisfy you always.

    May you always be captivated by her love.

    Song of Solomon 4:10-12 (New Living Translation)

    10 Your love delights me,

    my treasure, my bride.

    Your love is better than wine,

    your perfume more fragrant than spices.

    11 Your lips are as sweet as nectar, my bride.

    Honey and milk are under your tongue.

    Your clothes are scented

    like the cedars of Lebanon.

    12 You are my private garden, my treasure, my bride,

    a secluded spring, a hidden fountain.

    seeeeeee there is nothing wrong with sex! It's just the controversy with non believers about sex before marriage. =/

  • 1. No. Circumcision is cosmetic surgery, and infants cannot consent to it. Performing sugery for no reason other than the parents' choice is ethically wrong.

    2. It's cruel to do it to anyone who doesn't choose it for themselves.

    3. Wait until they decide for themselves.

    4. It's not cruel to let someone decide for themselves at an age where they can get proper pain relief and can understand what's being done to them and why. In fact it's no more cruel than any other cosmetic surgery.

    5. There is no god, so no. Even if a person believes in god, their religion is not more important than a child's bodily rights. The child has no religion, and isn't the property of his parents. If people think their god wants men circumcised, they can circumcise themselves, not helpless infants.

    6. The feeling of nerve endings in the foreskin is lost due to circumcision, as is some sensitivity of the glans. Sorrel et al found this when they studied fine touch perception of the penis.

    7. If, as adults, they choose to do it to themselves and are given proper pain meds, then that's their decision.

    Body modification is something adults should be able to choose for themselves after psychiatric assessment, as with breast implants or rhinoplasty. The genitals are such a personal and private area that no-one except the person who owns those genitals should be able to alter what is natural and healthy. It is not legal to remove any other healthy part of a newborn's body, so why make an exception for the part which is most highly innervated and so personal?

    I'm all in favour of personal choice, but people are wrong if they think that choice belongs to the parents. It belongs to the child.

  • um okay, well I am not sure bout this one. I think its better because it keeps that area cleaner, not having to clean inside the skin fold so well. they have done research showing in Africa it has reduced AIDS because the skin at the head is full of white blood cells which the virus attacks thus gettin rid of it is just a little more they can do to help. the reason I would say no is because of constant friction, they say men can lose feeling and that's not really fair because you want them to feel everything right. id do it less for religious and more because pros and cons, there are more pros.

    also, women circumcising is disgusting. in Africa they do that to ruin the women, they do it to "make it smaller" so its more enjoyable for the man, and there is no need to cut a womans genital areas. it is not the same as a man.

    also I would do it to a baby since you are constantly looking after them at birth, and changing diapers, and cleaning them, that way you can watch for any problems. I also doubt it really is that painful, people have surgeries all the time, its only a thin peice of skin being cut off. same as asking should we cut the embilical cord, because it might hurt.

    • I don't know. I am uncircumcised and never had any problems. And it's true constant friction makes the area a lot less sensitive. I think it's best to leave the human body as it is in nature. Of course we need to cut hairs and stuffs but they are all dead cells but in circumcision we are cutting the live foreskin.

    • Okay let me take the whore route now... I've been with both, and I prefer cut because for one, it does seem cleaner, and for two, when giving head, I prefer it to the skin moving around. its just my preference. if I liked a guy tho it wouldn't matter.

    • What is the constant friction that makes the area less sensitive? I have never heard of that.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

12 33
  • It was originally supported by Mr. Kellogg (the guy who's name adorns the cereal box, seriously) in the United states to prevent boys from masturbating and he also approved of circumcision for girls too.

    In the US, 80% of boys are circumcised, in Europe only 10% have docked dicks.

    I've been with both a circumcised man and an uncut man, I used to think foreskin was disgusting, but the more I got to "play with it" as it were, I actually prefer an uncut penis.

    Circumcising women is simply to prevent them from feeling ANY pleasure what-so-ever, in come cultures they even sow up the vagina! To us in the modern world, it is viewed as horrendous, but to them it's "the natural order of things". In those cultures, they believe that a woman should be submissive to her husband, hence the circumcision. Seriously, that's the reason.

    I don't believe we should cut our kids unless they want to be cut, they should make the choice, not the parents at a young age.

  • it does not "prevent" masturbation. it only makes it harder to ejaculate, and makes it less fun.

    should baby boys be circumcised? no. wait till later or simply forget the idea.

    or is it cruel to do when they're too young? yes because most doctors can't be bothered to use lidocaine.

    is it more cruel to make them go through it later? when they're older, proper anesthesia is always used. best of all, it should be his adult decision.

    should we do it for god? only the jewish and moslem god.

    should they do it for the extra feeling at the nerve endings? circ reduces feeling except when done as a last resort for phimosis.

    should women get circumcised too? hell no!

    • You think it doesn't reduce sensitivity if it's done for phimosis? That makes no sense - the same nerve endings are lost, it's still an amputation.

  • Should baby boys be circumcised?

    NO

    Or is it cruel to do when they're too young?

    YES

    Should we wait until they're older?

    NO they should decide for themselves when they are older its not your body.

    Is it more cruel to make them go through it later?

    NO - men are able to have pain killers and local anistetics as an adult but as a child they can't and feel it far more. But agan YOU shouldn't be making anyone go through anything, It should be thier decission

    Should we do it for God?

    Again, if the person believes strongly in their religion and it REQUIRES it they should make up their own mind how religious they want to be.

    Should they do it for the extra feeling at the nerve endings?

    Leaving someone intact has more feeling than cutting them so the comment is misleading

    Should women get circumcised too?

    Why? Mother nature or god doesn't make mistakes so why do we believe we are smarter?

    Using common sense there will always be a rare occasion when a person needs to be circumcised but they are very rare. The same could be said about a woman.

    so in actual MEDICAL emergencies I can understand it but for vanity or religious belief I believe it should be left up to the individual after they reach the age of 18

    • "Should we do it for God? Again, if the person believes strongly in their religion and it REQUIRES it they should make up their own mind how religious they want to be." AMEN!

  • No reason why not. Baby girls get their ears pierced, baby boys are circumcised. Yeah, he doesn’t have a say in it, but that doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong. He doesn’t have a say in the vaccinations that he gets either. Circumcision actually PREVENTS infections, so it’s a health-related procedure. I think the parents have every right to make the choice for their child.

    • Except that it's removing a naturally occurring part of your body. It's a life long change that can't be undone. It's medically not required. It removes the most sensitive part of a male's penis. It dulls the glans. Oh, and it's now considered a breach of a child's human rights. Imagine if it was an arm, instead of skin. Or your clitoris. No parent has the 'right' to say, chop that off so it 'fits in'. And, more to the point, it's not even that common now. Thank goodness it's now not done.

  • Yes.

    There really is no downside to having it done, and doing it as a baby is the best time to do it.

    I am sure that no circumcised man remembers having it done if they had it as a baby.

    There really is no point in not having it done.

    • I am always amazed at the degree of certainty expressed by ignorant people.

    • You. Are. Insane

    • Because its a great idea to cut off perfectly functioning genital tissue. *rolls eyes*

    • Show All
  • If I had a boy child I wouldn't have had him circumsized unless the doctor convinced me there was some kind of reason for it. And no I don't think girls should be. What would they cut off? If they cut off the c*** then I would have NO pleasure at all. Not some...I'm talking none.

  • Well, it's definitely worse later on because then you'll *feel* the pain.

    • Babies FEEL pain. In fact they have heightened sense of touch so they feel it WORSE. I think it's very dangerous for someone to assume babies feel no pain. Adults can understand why they feel the pain, and they can get sufficient meds. Babies can't understand why they're in pain, and the only meds that would stop the pain are too dangerous to use on them.

    • Um, no. I was circumcised as a baby and didn't even know I was until my parents told me later. I can't remember anything about it. On the other hand I have a friend who was circumcised at around 15 for medical reasons and he said it hurt for at least a week. I can't relate.

  • As a general rule, no, baby boys shouldn't be circumcised.

    1: The foreskin is very sensitive. I'm uncut, and I think my foreskin is the most sensitive part of my penis. Also the glans (head) remains more sensitive if uncut, because it doesn't get 'chaffed'

    2: In Australia now, doctors refuse to do it unless there is a distinct health reason for it. (That is, they don't do it simply as a fashion or religious thing)

    3: It's cruel to 'do it' period, unless for specific health reasons (can't retract pass the head).

    4: I would only recommend circumcising for God if he/she told you themselves, personally.

    There are 2 main health arguments for it, I will address both.

    1: Helps against some STDs. It's true that there has been some studies show mild decrease in males with circumcised penis to get some STDs. However the gain is so mild, that it does not warrant blanket circumcision. Furthermore, wearing a condom should be the primary method of preventing STDs

    2: Hygiene. Proper hygiene of an uncut penis requires retraction of the skin past the glans to clean, and should be done every time you shower. If this is done, there is no significant difference between a cut or uncut penis.

    • Even not being able to retract past the head is not an indication for circumcision - it can be treated conservatively, or simply left alone if it isn't causing pain or infection.

    • That's true aswell. The most accurate answer is "Stop taking medical advice from the internet and talk to your doctor". That said, I was trying to give a gist and basic medical details. Personally I'm glad it's banned now, as it's a horrific and unrequired amputation.

  • No, genital mutilation should not be done to males or females. Most reputable doctors are now refusing to do it because there is no medical need for it. A young boy is easily trained to wash himself properly. The origin of this barbaric custom was an attempt to stop boys from masturbating. A circumcised male needs a lubricant to masturbate, while an uncircumcised boy does not as there is adequate skin on the penis to allow the skin to slide freely over the penis. This also creates painful sex for females. A circumcised penis drags the female juices out of the vagina causing dry sex. This can be very uncomfortable. The loss of the skin over the penis desensitizes the penis, rather like callus on your hands, so there is a significant loss of sensation during sex for a circumcised male. Someone else mentioned the only known benefit of circumcision, although they got their facts wrong, it has nothing to do with white blood cells. It was discovered in Africa that the foreskin of the penis is SLIGHTLY more permeable than other skin and so slightly more receptive to the HIV virus. You should not be having unprotected sex anyway, so I don't give this argument much weight.

    • "Laboratory studies have found that the foreskin is rich in white blood cells, which are favored targets of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. So the theory is that men who are uncircumcised are much more likely to contract the virus during sex with an infected woman, and that the epidemic spreads when these newly infected men have sex with other women within their network of sexual partners. "

    • It doesn't really matter anyway. If you're afraid of getting an STD you shouldn't be having sex. And people should be tested before sex...and condoms should be used unless they want kids.

    • It does matter! that is why it is important to talk about this kind of stuff. only someone who is 'ignorant' would go around preaching abstinence as the way in todays generation. while talking about condoms and because and safe sex is great, to think that people are not going to screw around is a joke. Our only point in being here on Earth that is 100% known is that we need to reproduce, no sex = no people. so yea, anything that we can find out that can save 1 person is important.A little can save a LOT

  • i think yes do I because it is much more cleaner.

  • Here's a cruel fact of life. Women have hundreds more nerve ending than men do in their clitoris than men do in their entire penis. That means that my girlfriend's best performance on me will pale in comparison to the my "best performance" on her.

    So it feels better for her than it does for me. This is especially the case when the guy has had a circumcision (do to the loss of nerves). While this gives me physical pain just thinking about, we really should be circumcised. If you're wondering why, everyone "involved" is less likely to get a sexually transmitted disease when the guy has been circumcised.

    • That's bullsh*t. All the studies that make this claim are flawed.

  • Being in nursing school and having my OB rotation now, they should be done within a day of being born. Some cultures find it "nasty" to be circumcised, some find it "nasty" to not be. To me, it's more of a health issue. Medically, there is really no research supporting one or the other. I think they should be circumcised at birth with a local and medication afterwards. Some doctors I have come in contact with don't do a local (usually lidocaine) simply because they give the argument that the baby really can't feel it. Well hello! If they didn't, they wouldn't be lying there crying their little eyes out and trying to get away from the man/woman! They say the nerve endings really haven't developed yet either, but they still feel the pain. Even though almost no one remembers it being done to them, it hurt when it happened. Though the clamp they use restricts blood flow and eventually "numbs" them, it still hurts like hell. I hated watching it! I felt so bad for the baby. The way they have to stretch the skin out to be able to cut it looks like the worst part. And another thing. The whole argument about not giving a local, put a grown up man on a table and circumcise him and see if he doesn't punch your lights out. Doing a surgical procedure without ANY kind of pain medication is cruel punishment and should be frowned upon and those doctors should not be in practice. When you guys have kids and they are boys, demand they get a local. And tell the doctor to give it time to have an effect. The one I saw Monday gave a local and started as soon as he gave it. He didn't even give it time to have an effect on the poor little guy.

    • Thank you very much for this well-founded statement! As you said, it's a cultural thing and debatable if it should be done or not. I completely agree that if the parents opt for circumcision, it should be done early and with the proper medication so that there's no pain. That's certainly the most important point.

    • I am also a nurse, and there is quite a wealth of research on it medically. As I wrote above there is some evidence to support circumcision against STDs, BUT the potential gain is not worth the loss of the foreskin (that is, it's a minor gain and not worth it). Here in Australia it's now a blanket rule. They don't do it unless there's a specific medical reason for it. Imagine if instead of foreskin, it was an arm!

    • And you still think it needs to be done?

    • Show All
  • I don't understand why someone should get circumcised?

  • There are a few choices here. Some favor it because it is the standard within the community. Others favor it because it makes keeping the child clean and infection free easier. There is also some indication that circumcision does lower the rates of STI infection.

    The nerve loss involved is similar to the loss of sensation on the shaft of the penis and it can reduce sensation at the head. This isn't an entirely bad thing as it might increase orgasmic control.

    There isn't a god so such considerations are pointless.

    Female circumcision is absolutely unacceptable because the point that is not hygiene or look but simply to make certain the woman cannot feel sexual pleasure. It involves the removal of the labia, clitoris and often the infibulation of the rest of the labia structure. This procedure is barbaric and is not supported in the majority of the civilized world.

    An circumcision doesn't prevent masturbation in boys though it might make it pointless in women.

    • I agree with everything except the God comment.

    • That's fine.

    • So why is it even illegal for those cultures to symbolically prick the hood of the clitoris to satisfy their rites? Also, circumcision was introduced to this country during Victorian times as a "cure" for masturbation. Sound familiar?

    • Show All
  • Body modification is as old as humanity. This includes body piercing as well as body painting. It serves to make individuals different, at least for a time. The ability to bear pain also carried a cachet with it - a sign of adulthood. So much for background history. Coming to the modern day with our much increased knowledge of human anatomy and physiology, there is absolutely no NEED in most cases for any of the more extreme forms of body modification, and this includes circumcision of either sex. We all need to learn about hygiene, both personal and general, just as we need to learn about everything else to do with comfortable living. However, there is one more thing to be considered: emotions, or beliefs if you prefer to all them that. We differ in our emotional responses to things. Religions, and other tribal customs, demand certain rituals. Hence the belief in circumcision as some religious requirement. Later, ignorance about masturbation lent further (erroneous) justification for circumcision. Adherents talk about the aesthetics of circumcision - looks better - while some may get a from of sexual gratification from it. Take your pick. What turns you on? Ultimately, there is no NEED for it, and it is a violation of free choice to impose it on babies or young children.

  • The whole circumcision thing was originally a religious thing, but I think it also has some health benefits. If you are going to circumsize a guy, do it when they're a baby. The nerves haven't all formed down there; if a guy my age were to do it, it could be one of the worst things ever. And the masterbating thing... yeah, you can still do that.

    • It was originally a health thing, but became a religious thing, because people needed an authotithy to believe it and priests had the most authorithy, so they told people a god wants it. That's what religions are all about: old laws which could not be imposed as law and thus were 'marketed' as 'commands' from a god. Lots of these laws are either evident or obsolete now, but religion clings to them.

    • It has NEVER been a health thing - just excuses to convince people to carry on a tradition. Why circ as a baby, when they have no choice and feel heightened pain, and it could interfere with bonding? Nerves as a baby are FULLY formed, so you're misinformed about that. Adults get proper pain relief when they're circumcised, and most importantly, they do it by choice. If you leave a guy intact, chances are he will never get circumcised, so why do it to boys at all?

  • nothing to worry about, I heard they are suppose to get it down right after they're born so it doesn't hurt and won't remeber best of all

    • It is really odd the way babies behave. For some reason the newborn male can be sound asleep when the circumcision starts, but the moment the scalpel starts cutting unnenestised meat from his penis he is wide awake and screaming in terror. It is a really odd reaction from an entity that feels no pain.

    • Ouch. now there's another reason I'm glad I'm a girl, I can handle pms but I don't think I'd handle my stuff being cut

    • You don't have to handle it I'm circumsized and I don't really care... it does the same thing its supposed to do...+ ur supposedly a better partner because you can last longer

  • They should be able to choose themselves. I know that some people who are circumcised hate it and try to stretch the foreskin to "cover it up again" (yeah pretty gross).

  • NOOOOOOOOOO leave them boys alone if you are born that way then it was there for a reason stop cutting up .

    • Absolutely!

  • noooooooooooooooooooo

    noooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    boys need to masterbate once they body produce sperms

    sperms are *born* every 3 days, they hv to come out somehow to make space for new once

    its better for him to drip in sleep

    • Sperm is created every day, ot every 3 days

    • I know sperm is created every moment, but it has 3 days cycles for each cells, if you get the jizz of it

  • Show More (25)