Gobsmacked

[Anja]

I apologise in advance to Leanne for this thread as I know you stated you didnt want a debate on the whole circumcision issue but I am truly amazed at the amount of people who have said yes they would have their sons circumcised.....i dont get it????? please can someone explain this to me!!!

Ok....religious reasons i can accept. If it had to be done for a medical reason then fair enough.....but what other reason is there for putting your baby through this.

This has seriously blown my mind

 

[AppleBlossom]

I wouldn't unless there was a reason. My OH is circumcised but for medical reasons. But each to their own I suppose

 

[Rhi_Rhi1]

I wouldnt !! unless for medical reasons obviously and i can appreciate other peoples believes. but i think my son would hate me! when he grew up!! lol. Ive known a few lads as i was growing up who were circumcised (some for medical reasons) and when there mates found out, well lets just say the mocking wasnt very nice! ... but boys will be boys x
plus i think they have the right to make a choice like that for them selfs i mean its is theres

 

[Happy]

This is def something we would not consider unless it was for medical reasons. I don't think it is something we would even bring up. If he wanted to when he was older then thats up to him and its his body. I understand it for religous beliefs but not sure other than that.

 

[Sparky0207]

Same for me, definitely not something that would even cross my mind unless it was for a medical reason.

I know people have different beliefs and cultures and I respect that entirely, but (without causing a big debate) I would be really interested to see comments from people who are having it done purely out of choice

xx

 

[Uvlollypop]

i think its awful taking that choice away from their child, unless its for medical reasons it should be left well alone!

as for the its cleaner point of view, teach your kid how to wash his bits properly

skin removal isnt needed

 

[emmajane]

I have always totally against it unless for medical reasons, but recently my OH's cousin had to the op and was in serious pain for a long time afterwards, which apparently doesn't happen (or if some pain not at all as much) for babies. I am really undecided as I don't want him to have it but can see OH's point.

 

[momandpeanut]

i think its awful taking that choice away from their child, unless its for medical reasons it should be left well alone!

as for the its cleaner point of view, teach your kid how to wash his bits properly

skin removal isnt needed

Completely agree !!

 

[Angelmouse]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was always under the impression that it was more of an American thing to have ones child circumcised?

Having had intimate knowledge of a circumcised man I don't think I would countanance it. He had thrush more times in a month than I've ever had in my life.

 

[Anja]

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this way....it really has shocked me! I have been all around the office since reading this getting opinions too!

I think starting a debate is not a bad thing....debate is a really good way to learn and be educated.....I for one want to learn more about this so I can understand the other side of the argument (not neccessarily agree though), because right now, possibly due to a lack of education on the subject, I really dont comprehend how anyone can do this as a matter for choice!

 

[brownhairedmom]

Having had intimate knowledge of a circumcised man I don't think I would countanance it. He had thrush more times in a month than I've ever had in my life.

That's gross.


I will in fact be getting the baby circumcized if it is a boy. I don't want anyone to jump down my throat about it, but I do think its something that is acceptable. I am from NA though, and it is common practice here.

I just think it is cleaner, you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized, you're also less likely to get urinary tract infections. Its just something I feel necessary for the over-all health of my baby, both now and later in life.

 

[carmen]

O.k ... well obviously don t wanna be the to disagree with everyone, i do it religious reasons. But i know other people have said that it is much more hygenic, so it cleaner for the boy.

Also women have said that men with circumsion have cleaner and less smelling penises, obviously when they men.

don t everyone attack me though cos thats what i ve been told , for me its normal for men to have circumsion, and i must say they are extremley clean (tmi lol )

 

[Vickie]

This discussion has come up many times on the forum (and has been known to get very heated). And really a lot of it does have to do with regional differences/customs. Let's all try to remember that while stating our points of views

 

[brownhairedmom]

Also women have said that men with circumsion have cleaner and less smelling penises, obviously when they men.

don t everyone attack me though cos thats what i ve been told , for me its normal for men to have circumsion, and i must say they are extremley clean (tmi lol )

Cleannn, yes that they are. I would rather be with a circumcised man any day of the week, rather than an uncircumcised man. (Also TMI)

 

[Kooky]

If a guy washes properly then there would be no difference in cleanliness.

 

[Uvlollypop]

.

you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized,

Im sorry but you are wrong weather you have a foreskin or not and you sleep around without a condom you will get an std! not having a foreskin wont save you

i understand that in some religions and country's its common practice

BUT if someone washed properly they wont have smelly bits, makes no odds if theres a foreskin or not.

i wouldnt pierce my babys ears because they cant say yay or nay let alone cutting a bit of its penis off! freedom of choice an all that

 

[polo_princess]

I just think it is cleaner

I completely agree and my reasons for having my child circumsised. Taking the whole idea into consideration from a male point of veiw of course. Prior to meeting my OH it was something id never considered

 

[brownhairedmom]

Im sorry but you are wrong weather you have a foreskin or not and you sleep around without a condom you will get an std! not having a foreskin wont save you

I didn't say it completely eliminated them, I said they are less likely. Obviously if you are having unprotected sex you are at risk for an STD.

What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases?
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of HIV infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.

What might this connection between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.


https://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page4.htm


I'm out of this debate.

 

[carmen]

I think women who have been with a man sexually, that has foreskin and one that has'n t will definatley be able to tell the difference, i agree with rae05.

A man who hasn t got foreskin, doesn t go to the toilet and get a little bit of urine, behind i know that sounds disgusting but its true , foreskin traps alot.

Thats why my reasons for circumsion are for both religious but also other reasons.

 

[Uvlollypop]

seriously! oh my gosh again if men keep themselfs clean theres no issue, how can you say not having a foreskin offers some protection against stds...

teach your boys how to clean them selfs no need to chop bits off....