Wow; it's only circumcision..

[Chloejp91]

Before I get killed, I'm not suggesting it is only circumsion, that's just the title of this thread.

I'm due in less than 4 weeks and I'm having a boy. I'm definitely going to circumcise him. It's part of my culture and my partner's culture so it's going to be done. I just feel sad that it's seen as such a bad thing, where there are some benefits to it.

Anyone circumsised/circumsizing their sons?

Midori,

My 5 week old son was lumbar punctured about a week ago. I was not happy about it but the ICU doctor made a good case for doing it (even though he was already covered by antibiotics for meningitis). That was a relatively easy decision to make, although I suspect the LP was MUCH MORE painful than circumcision. (Luckily he is better now).

Circumcision is a more marginal one. The benefits are there but not overwhelming and they are much longer term. If my wife had been enthusiastic, I would have had it done, though.

Iloveit,

Is vaccination as protective against influenza than isolation? No. Does that mean you do not vaccinate? Of course not as you are not always going to want to or be able to isolate yourself from the flu virus. However, that is the equivalent case that you are making about my argument. It just is not logical.

No larrygrylls - you (flu) vaccinate the vulnerable. The equivalent of that for HIV would surely be developing countries. Not mostly white, heterosexual, non-drug using population.

Youcant,

I take your point re adolescence but I think that circumcision would be far more traumatic then.

Of course, we cannot know for a fact how traumatic it is for a baby but they certainly do not lay down long term memories not do they have a psychological attachment to their penis. By adolescence, boys have certainly become very attached (for want of a better word) to their penises and I cannot see them offering to have it done, even if the protective argument were overwhelming.

"Is vaccination as protective against influenza than isolation?"

it is not comparable.

STD's are contractable through sexual contact. influenza does not require you to touch someone to contract it. nor do people have a regular influenza test to see if tehy have it because the test would only tell them taht at that exact moment in time they did or didn't have it, tehy could walk out the door and be sneezed on and teh test would mean nothing whereas if someone has an STD test they know it is valid until the next time they have unprotected sex.

if it was as easy to isolate yourself from influenza as it is to isolate yourself from STDs (by wearing condoms) then i suspect people would not be taking the jabs.

but as i said. it isn't comparable. your arguments are ridiculous. i don't know how you can't see that this isn't comparable.

There is nbo evidence that says circumcision prevents STDs....none at all. Why the fuck would it?

IloveIT,

If you are prepared to make the assumption that everyone having sex uses barrier protection all the time, and that it never fails, then don't circumcise. That, however, is a truly ridiculous assumption. By the way, I also assume that if you have a daughter, you won't get her vaccinated against cervical cancer for the same reason?

This is more like it!

Surely the very crux of the argument, no?

Most men/adolescents would not choose it for themselves therefore we choose it for them before they can object.

"There is nbo evidence that says circumcision prevents STDs....none at all. Why the fuck would it?"

Now there is an educated, scientific and politely phrased comment!

"Scientists suggest that circumcision is effective in preventing the spread of HIV because cells inside the foreskin are an ideal breeding ground for the virus and allow it be passed on in sexual intercourse."

That is at least a plausible mechanism. Or do you have a qualification in virology or cellular biology to refute it in an educated manner?

"Surely the very crux of the argument, no?"

Yes, I agree, that is the crux of the argument.

"Most men/adolescents would not choose it for themselves therefore we choose it for them before they can object."

It is the "it" in the above phrase that I would take issue with. Is it the same it for a tiny baby as for an adolescent. My suspicion is that it is not nearly as big a deal (for reasons that I mentioned above) for a baby as an adolescent. Can I prove it 100%, no. The best evidence is that I know no-one who has been circumcised (and I know lots) who regrets it or has any sense of trauma over it. On the other hand, those circumcised late in life are often very upset by it.

larry i have no intention of circumcising either myself or my children. if they so wish when they are of an age to decide that is up to them. it was never an option that i would unnecessarily circumcise a child.

fortunately, i do not have any authority over otehr people using condoms so it isn't up to me to circumcise them (shudder at the thought) but i know i will be teaching my children about good hygiene and safe sexual practises. should tehy decide when they are sexually active that they don't wish to use condoms taht is up to them but i will not be making a decision for an (not sexually active) infant child based on something tehy may or may not do as an adult. that will be their decision to make based on facts when they become sexually active.

the only sexual health i am and ever will be responsible for is my own, i do not have the right to assume anything about my children in relation to their sexual activity as adults.

i have no daughters but if i am ever to have one the decision to vaccinate will be one taht is made at and age when she is able to look at the facts and risks associated with the HPV vaccine. i would never force it upon my (hypothetical0 daughter against her wishes. her sexual health is her business and whilst i have a responsibility to guide my children, i woul never take such a decision out of their hands.

IloveIt,

So how would you "guide" your hypothetical 13 year old daughter when she is hypothetically offered the HPV vaccine?

by providing as much factual information as possible. teh decision would be hers based on the facts and her own personal feelings about it.

Iloveit,

Providing info is not guidance. Guidance is guidance. It is giving someone a steer in a particular direction, but allowing them the final decision. The problem is also that most children, aged 13 (and that is when the vaccine is offered) cannot know enough about their later sex life to make an educated choice.

I think that you are somewhat copping out in this one.

not copping out at all, providing information is a huge factor in helping your child to make sucha decision, without teh facts how on earth to tehy even begin to know what they want to do?

"most children, aged 13 (and that is when the vaccine is offered) cannot know enough about their later sex life to make an educated choice. "

and you think a parent knows enough about their infant child's future sex life to make the decision on circumcision?

"not copping out at all, providing information is a huge factor in helping your child to make sucha decision, without teh facts how on earth to tehy even begin to know what they want to do?"

You are confusing necessary with sufficient. Providing info is absolutely necessary but it is not sufficient. They need both the facts and a steer from an experienced and educated adult.

It is because I think that a parent DOES NOT know about a child's future sex life that is an argument for circumcision. If there is any chance (and there is) that a child will engage in unsafe sex at some point in their life, it is a parent's duty to provide as much protection as possible.

"Scientists suggest that circumcision is effective in preventing the spread of HIV because cells inside the foreskin are an ideal breeding ground for the virus and allow it be passed on in sexual intercourse."

Scientists suggest....can you please use something a little more concrete? Besides Ssince circumcision desensitises the glans, men circumcised in adulthood would be less willing to use condoms than before. Therefore you could say it increases the risk of infection due to the fact, that not only does it have a slight (which decreases with each and every study)increased risk in the first place, but other factors in spreading the disease are heightened.

And Larry please don't try to patronise me, especially when you come from the morally bankrupt camp of thinking it's okay to mutilate children.

The feminist parent,

You were both rude and patronising. You will get as good as you give. You said "how the fuck would it"? I gave you a plausible mechanism. Now, would you care to refute it with a reason why the mechanism should not work?

Would you like to cite some studies to back up your second paragraph?

"an experienced and educated adult."

i know i have many merits but I'm afraid i am not au fait with the risks and benefits of teh HPV vaccine and definitely know no more about it than what i can find online and in leaflets, so i would have nothing further to offer other than the facts. how would you suggest i steer without any furtehr knowledge than that which is on the map?

"It is because I think that a parent DOES NOT know about a child's future sex life that is an argument for circumcision. If there is any chance (and there is) that a child will engage in unsafe sex at some point in their life, it is a parent's duty to provide as much protection as possible."

no, it is that child's duty, when it becomes a sexually active adult to make the decsion. it is the parents' duty to teach about safe sex and good hygiene. anything beyond that is the child's(when it is an adult) responsibility and decision.

TheFeministParent - Masters & Johnson undertook clinical and neurological testing of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, as well as the glans, and detected no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and uncircumcised men [Masters & Johnson, 1966]. Sexual pleasure also appears to be about the same.

Larry wasn't patronising you at all. The inappropriate behaviour was from you!

larrygryllhs, the american Academy of Pediatrics "does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn males stating the evidence was not significant enough to prove the operation's benefit"

How would you respond to that? You ignored me when I posted earlier.

Imarriedafrog - I know many many more than 2 men who have been circumcised and all of the men that I have discussed this with would circumcise their sons - including my DH.

larry, i am aware you are attempting to remove the focus from your lack of evidence to back up your own standing on this issue (infant circumcision, incase you have forgotten) by questioning me about teh level of guidance i would provide to a non existant child.

" I know many many more than 2 men who have been circumcised and all of the men that I have discussed this with would circumcise their sons - including my DH."

how many of those men are not jewish or of a religion that advocates circumcision?

twofalls - as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring...) there is evidence and quotes and opinion to support both sides of this debate. The AAPs opinion is not final!