a little survey - circumcision?

[Sadie]

Without being biased or judgmental or anything else one reading this might assume... I was hoping to get an informal survey of people to post whether or not they circumcised their sons (without giving reasons for or against doing so). I am just curious! And, to be the first, I did not.

UPDATE - I was hoping for just some yes or no answers... I just checked this discussion after not reading it for a while. Seems to have gotten a little heated and/or weird. So, I am closing it. Thanks for the responses!

[KiwiInOz]

My boys are intact.

In nearly all countries, including New Zealand and the UK, maternity wards are not equipped to circumcise newborns. In Australia, only 15% of babies are cut. In Canada, it's down to 10%. In most countries, if you want your baby circed, you have to wait until it's 1-3 months old, and take it to a rare pediatrician or urologist who specializes in cutting infants. In many countries, no doctor will cut the foreskin of an infant or child that that has no symptoms.

South Korea is heavily circed, but most are cut between the ages of 8 and 16.

By circing 55% of baby boys before they leave the maternity ward, the USA is all alone. Uncut can be unhealthy if the penis is misused. (And misused cut penises have their share of problems as well.) But that is not a reason to cut but to clean up one's act.

Intact is a minority preference in most of the USA east of Denver. I grew up the intact son of a cut Dad, a fact that was never a problem because it went unremarked. I also often had the only foreskin in the locker room. That too went unremarked and was very easy to conceal -- skin it back and nobody notices. I was scared that girls would think me a total weirdo, but that was probably paranoia on my part. There is so much on the web about the foreskin that a girl with cut brothers (or no brothers at all) can learn heaps about it in the privacy of her home office. There is a lot more awareness nowadays that Mother Nature makes penises a certain way, and that a lot of boys and men have had the foreskin cut off. In any event, when the body is one way and attitudes go another way, we understand that it's attitudes that have to conform to the body, not vice versa. Except when the body in question is the American foreskin!

Japan and non-Moslem Europeans do not circumcise, have good hygience standards, and sophisticated medical professions. If intact was unhealthy, we'd know it by now. What we do know is that the advanced country with highest rate of HIV positives is the good old circumcised USA.

Her and elsewhere on the Net I read of American health professionals heaving a sigh of relief when Mum tells a hospital nurse or doctor that she doesn't want newborn Bubs circumcised. If they don't like it and don't feel it's necessary, why do they agree to do it if Mom requests it?

[Sylas'sMomma]

We chose to. Circumcised men are less likely to contract an STD and we think that's important. We also wanted our son to look like his dad. We went in for an office visit after he was 3 weeks old...we figure learning to eat is more important. He didn't cry at all during the procedure either!! It went very smoothly and healed fast. I don't think you should or shouldn't based on what other people will think....it actually isn't anyone else's business. You should do what feels right to you and your husband. Who cares if they don't do it in Europe...do or don't because it's what you want.

[Jennifer Kay]

We did not circumcise our son. We had no religious reason for doing so and from my research, I could find no valid medical excuse for it.

[Beth]

We didn't either. My husband is not, but his older brother is and my husband definitly feels like he got the better end of the deal. I think it was difficult for my extended family when we made the choice for our son. They would ask, "How will he feel in the locker room?" When I asked my husband about that he said,"We didn't look at eachother's penis', and if by chance we saw something, you weren't about to discuss it with anyone." That was a good enough answer for most.

[twocatsandababy]

I've only read a few pages of responses but I'm not seeing anybody comment on the much higher AIDS risk (twice as likely to be infected) with uncircumcised penises. Is it because people assume their kid won't ever be exposed or that the disease is now "cured" so why worry about it? Someday your son will be having sex and if you think teens are just super responsible about condoms think again. So for me in this decision, that's certainly on my mind. Also, it's not a walk in the park to get it done later if you're leaving it up to your kid to decide. My husband got circumcised when he was older because his parents didn't have it done when he was an infant and he got a painful, bad infection that left the skin around his groin discolored.

[Terri Bell]

when my son was born, i didn't have him circumsized. but, then when he was almost 2 we moved back in with dad and now at 3 dad demanded that he be circumsized. i really don't see the point. it was painful and truamatic and if given the opportunity to do again, i would not!

[ML]

In the UK, only 1 in 140 males ever needs a circumcision for a medical reason, and it's getting rarer. That means you have to circumcise 140 babies to prevent one circumcision later. Circumcision later in life is safer, less painful, and has better cosmetic results anyway. I've never heard of an older child or adult dying or suffering amputation as a result of circumcision for example, whereas there are several cases of this happening to babies. That's right, babies have died or suffered sex change because of circumcision. The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim"will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists." Cases like this are rare, but keep on happening, and they just don't happen with circumcisions later in life.

As far as HIV goes, there are no fewer than six African countries where the circumcised men are more likely to be HIV+ than the intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't be possible. It's not like HIV strikes at random anyway. Circumcision can only help someone having unsafe sex with an HIV+ partner. It's no reason to do it to a baby.

[ML]

You might also want to check out the following:

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.

RACP Policy Statement on Circumcision
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcisio...
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

National Health Service (UK)
"Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest it has any medical benefit."

The College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia
"Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."

See also:
Canadian Children's Rights Council
"It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that "circumcision" of male or female children is genital mutilation of children.


Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians'...

[Alberta Canada]

Several comments here refer to locker room embarrassment. This is real, and it's not about boys staring at each other. You can't help seeing others when they change unless you keep your eyes staring at the floor or something. And it isn't easy to just keep yourself covered all the time. And some guys, for whatever reason, prance around with nothing on just to show off.
When I went to school in NYC, swim classes for boys were nude. (True, check it out, NY Times had a story about this a while back.)
So, as the only uncircumcised buy in a large high school, there was no way to keep the secret. I did try to find ways to keep the skin pulled back, but with an extra long foreskin, that was impossible.
While I don't support circumcision, it is still unusual enough in many places to make the embarrassment factor real.
Incidentally, it is not always true that when erect the skin pulls back. In my case I am completely covered even when erect.

[ML]

The locker-room thing only seems to be an issue in the USA. The parents that circumcise their children in Canada, Australia, or Europe don't seem to worry about their kids being the odd ones out.

The male circumcision rate in the USA looks likely to drop below 50% in the next 10-20 years, but it's a fairly safe bet that many of the parents who cite the locker-room argument now, will go ahead anyway. How did the circumcision rate ever get above 50% anyway? No-one seemed to worry about an "embarrassment factor" before then.

I just think people should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their penis cut off. It's their body after all.

It's true that there are variations in how much foreskin males have, just as there are variations in women's genitals. We don't allow cosmetic labiaplasty on children though. Technically, it's actually illegal on adult women too even if they request it, but the law is routinely ignored.

[Teresa]

I work in long-term hospital care. So my answer will be a little graphic for some.
The poor old men, disabled or out of their minds, who were not circumsized clearly suffer. You can smell them on entering the room. They have awful infections, and often require surgery to cut and open obstructing, scarred foreskins after neglectful "care". This is anecdotal, but easilly half of my uncircumsized patients have some complication from lack of "pull back" hygeine.
Also, I must acknowledge higher STD rates for uncircumsized men and their partners.
My three sons are circumsized for their health.

[ML]

Women's genitals are much harder to clean than men's, but we don't cut parts off baby girls to make it easier for them to be cleaned 70-80 years later. Heck, it would have made it easier for me cleaning my daughters when they were in nappies, but it would still have been wrong to have their inner labia cut off.

We have old people in hospitals and nursing homes in the countries that don't circumcise too (pretty much all South American and European countries, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand etc), but all the problems with intact men that people seem to worry about so much in the USA just don't seem to happen elsewhere.

The only long-term study of circumcision and STD's in a western country (the Dickson study), actually showed a 24.4 STD infections per 1000 person-years among the circumcised group and 23.4 STD infections per 1000 person-years among the non-circumcised group ie the circumcised men had slightly more STD's.

If being circumcised was actually medically beneficial, there'd be at least one national medical organisation that recommended it, and not as many that recommend against it.