Hmmm... we opted for not. My husband was adamant that this decision was not for us to make. If it were a case that 50% of uncircumcised males go blind or die of heart disease, then our decision would have been different. But we weighed the issue over incease in std vs. the issue of removing an important part of our son's body. We decided that it would now be even more important to stress the importance of condom use during sexual contact.
I mean, he would have received such instruction from us anyway, but now it is imperative that we fulfill our duties as his parents and make sure he understands his increased risks. If he understands this (as my husband and I both did with previous
"partners") then he'll be just fine.

Reply

Heck no! We did not circumcise! If my son wishes to cut off part of his body when he's older, then he can decide that for himself.

I read an article in "Men's Health" years before I had kids. There was a man that lived into adulthood without being circumsized. Later in life he did get circumcized. He had orgasms both before and after circumcision. He said you cannot even compare the magnitude of an orgasm before and after. Apparently the skin that is cut off during circumcision is THE most sensitive skin on the penis and according to this man's testimony it makes orgasm that much more pleasurable to have the skin in place.

That testimony sold it for me. I wasn't going to take that away from my son. I wasn't going to make that decision for him.

Reply

We decided not to subject our son to Male Genital Mutilation. It's not natural. There's no religious reason to have it done. If he's faithful to his future wife, then he won't have to worry about STD's. I have friends who had their sons cut so they'd look "just like daddy," that's a lousy reason to have it done. I think circumcision is an easy way for pediatricians to make money and that's why they still recommend having it done.

Reply

delete the post and run because if you don't, this will have 100 replies of arguments and debates..... some things should not be discussed here!

I am not even gonna comment on it

Reply

We did not circumsize. There was no reason for us to mutilate our son's body as he's perfect the way he was born.

CONDOMS reduce the spread of Aids - what they hell are they thinking advertising that any type of bodily mutilation would reduce the chances of getting a sexually transmitted disease. That is SO irresponsible. So will the parents tell their kids, "um, son, no need to use a condom, you're circumsized so have at 'er"

Totally irresponsible for anyone to advertise that 'fact', if you can even call it one.

Reply

How about this - Let's remove all women's breasts so none of them get breast cancer...

And if we remove everybodies toenails when they are born we'll have fewer toenail infections and ingrown toenails.

That is how silly I find both the AIDS and Foreskin Infection arguments. People using these studies to promote circumcision actually makes me ANGRY. Not having unprotected sex in the first place is a much better way of preventing AIDS than removing a boys foreskin. People are going to remove their babies foreskin so if he does one day have unprotected sex with a person who has AIDS in that instance he will have a 50% better shot of not catching AIDS? How ridiculous is this country. No other countries routinely chop off the tip of a boys penis, and I will tell you right now they are not going to start because of this study. Why do people think it is EVER okay to mutilate someone elses body? You do so much damage to the nerves of the Penis when circumsiing it is staggering.

I don't think this study shifts the ball to the "pro" court.

Reply

Yes we had our Son done. My husband insisted on it. It seems like everybody we know, knows somebody that had to have it done as a adult and we didn't want that. We also chose to have it done as all tha males in our familys are done. I disagree with the arguement that "they can decide for themselves when there older" I believe it is the parents responsibility to make these choices, it is the same with weather you have your child vaccinated or not - that is not a choice you leave to them for when they are older, you as a parent do what you think is right. I respect those who chose not to have there son's circumcised I wish I could have the same in return.

Reply

I don't like this post. Mainly because you said "These new studies certainly shift the ball back into the "pro-" court". If you hadn't put that opinion of your in it I probably would have passed on by...

What the heck? Why? Circumcision for that reason seems like a load of cr@p to me - I mean cut off one of his body part so if my son has unprotected sex one day he'll have less chance of catching an STD? Why don't I remove some other body parts too then he definitely won't get cancer or something in them.

This is probably going to be a wayyyy commented on post. I am wondering if that is what is wanted by the poster - maybe I shouldn't have bothered to reply to feed it...

Oh well, I am a sucker ;).

Reply

My husband also insisted on circumsising. It made me sick to even think about it, but I was really glad to hear about this study. Finally a good reason! I still feel for my poor baby, but alot worse things are being done to children every day. I also have heard of men having to do it when they are older. I think a boy is better off not remembering.

Reply

I would like to add that I think alot more people get this done than admit to it. It's still a VERY common practice.

Reply

Absolutely not. I posted about this not that long ago here: http://www.muchmorethanamom.com/?p=427
There's no good reason to slice children's body parts off. However, I do have friends and family who have done it and wouldn't judge them as parents. I disagree wholeheartedly with genital mutilation under all circumstances, but all parents do what they feel is best and shouldn't be judged for that. The study you reference? Bullsh*t on so many levels. Heard of condoms?

Reply

We have 2 little girls but if we ever have a boy he WILL be circumsized.

Reply

It is so sad that now even more babies are going to be mutilated because of this study! even if this study is true (which I doubt fro what I have been reading) it does NOT matter in the end. If you think your son may have a reduced chance to get HIV, would you honestly tell him to go ahead and have unprotected sex? They can STILL catch HIV - what really makes the difference is using a condom or abstinence, so whether the man in circumciced or not, it won't make a difference!
I did NOT cut my sons. They were born PERFECT and there was NO REASON to change that! There are TONS and TONS of researches and interviews with men who have tried sex WITH and WITHOUT the foreskin - they ALL say that the uncircumciced penis sensation is uncomparable!
It is sick and sad that so many women let their sons be cut because thir dads want the babies to look like them OR because other men can't accept the fact they are mutilated! Do your research for your children's sake!

Reply

The complication rate of circumcision is now 1 in 10. That is unbelievably high and most babies will end up with at least one minor complication, like adhesions. The rate of STD's and HIV transmission in heterosexual sex is much much lower than that. The condom has been invented. Also, the foreskin does have many important functions that shouldn't be overlooked. These studies were designed with this premise in mind because circ rates were going down. Circ is a business and every 10 years a new excuse is given to keep it going in the US because most parents don't do the research and because we are a nation that prizes conformity.

EVERY other nation in the world has dropped non-religious circimcision, and a few have made it illegal, like Sweden. In the next few years we will see that this justification for circ will also be gone. Ask your circumcised husband if he would have sex with a HIV + woman, if he felt his lack of skin was protection. Who would? Its an asinine reason to recommend circ. This is veiled colonialism, we offer this as a solution to Africans, like they are idiots or something. Then, people use this to justify cosmetic surgery on a newborn, when, in the time it takes our kids to be adults, they may have found cures for STD's. My 4 boys are intact of course & so is my husband, who had lots of partners & has never had an STD.

Also...the US has one of the highest AIDS rates in the developed world & we have been a majority circ culture. Sweden has one of the lowest and they are 99% intact. So, whatever...

Reply

Tara: Your friend's claim that he enjoyed uncut sex more may be totally true. However, this anecdotal story contradicts the modern science, research, and medicine. Of course, the studies could be wrong. But I'm gonna place my bets on dozens of methodologically-sound investigations than on a sprinkle of anecdotes.

Ugh: No other country routinely circumcises babies? This is so not true. Every western country does it - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK, much of Europe, etc.! You can oppose cirumcision without stating patently untrue and easily verifiable "facts."

Reply

Uncircumsized men have roughly the same risk for contracting AIDS as women. Just as I wouldn't mutilate my daughter's genitalia to prevent an STD (albeit a deadly one), I won't mutilate my son's.

Groups where AIDS is rampant are typically groups where condoms are not readily available, groups that practice promiscuous unprotected sex, groups that use IV drugs, groups where adequate screening of donor blood is not done, etc. My son does not belong to any of these groups. Furthermore, circumcision only reduces the risk of sexually transmitted HIV.

Additionally, the complication rates for circumcision are much higher than the rate of HIV transmission- even when you include all of the high-risk groups.

Reply

JeanetteB: Get your facts straight. You are "so" totally wrong. None of Europe routinely circumcises. I actually LIVE in the UK so I know what I am talking about (unlike you seemingly). Americans I have known who live here and want their babies circumcised can't get the NHS to do it(and are looked at like they are wanting to harm their baby). They either have to travel to a US military base and pay or pay a rabbi to do it on their kitchen table (The latter is actually thought to be the better option as at least they do it all the time so will do it quickly with some skill).

Gee, by the way, Australia and New Zealand have abandoned male circumcision, their rates are only 5% now, usually only done for religious reasons.
http://www.circinfo.org/
http://www.circumstitions.com/NZ.html

In 2005 only 9.2% of male Canadian babies were circumcised. http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/

I'm really tired of pro-circumcision propaganda (which in most cases - like this one - is a load of bull). I really don't get why the US is so attached to what is essentially a Victorian medical fad.

Reply

Ever hear about abstinance? And safe sex practices? Those pretty much *eliminate* the chances of contracting HIV without cutting off body parts!

Sorry, but this study is only important in places like Africa where AIDS is still in epidemic proportions, people don't have easy access to condoms or there are cultural stimga associated with using them AND rape is rampent in areas of unrest. In a developed nation like the USA where condoms are easily available and there is no negative image reguarding safe sex practices, a lower risk of AIDS is really not a good excuse to cut off part of a child's body.

Teach abstinance.
Teach safe sex practices.
Teach proper condom use.

Baby boys are born with a foreskin for a REASON.

Reply

Oh....BTW.....after you cut off part of his penis, he'll STILL need to use a condom to protect himself. What's the point?

Reply

JeanetteB -
It is more common to be UNCUT in Europe than circumcised.
The USA *IS* the only developed nation where circumcision is so common.
And the AAP recommends *against* circumcision as a *routine* procedure.

Reply