Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Would you circumcise you son?

- Tilted Sexuality (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-sexuality/)

- - Would you circumcise you son? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-sexuality/24427-would-you-circumcise-you-son.html)

No

There is no proven medical advantage/reason for having it done.

Im with Halx all the way!...
and Im also uncut.

I also love my penis and wouldnt want it any other way.

Go foreskin, indeed!

I was not circumsized untill I was about 23 yrs old.... it was starting to tear during sex so I had to have it cut off :(

I must say that sex after it was cut was very crappy cause it was soooo sensitive .. lol

But will I cut my babies dick when he is a child? yup...

I would hate to have him go through what I did at my age and getting it chopped... you have no idea of the pain.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hrothgar
The last time I checked circumcision didn't mean castration.

I was illustrating the importance of a penis. I never said circumcisions rendered it worthless.

Quote:

Originally posted by tisonlyi
As for the tonsil and appendix points... irrelevent. diseased, dangerous, medically must be removed (currently - that will change at some point in the future, unless we wipe ourselves out.)

I think the comparison of tonsillectomy and circumcision is completely relevant. The hand comparison is pretty non sequitur--hardly an equal comparison. In the past tonsillectomy, was viewed as necessary for many children, becoming something of a fad in the '50s. Further research has shown that tonsillectomy is not necessary the majority of the time, yet it is still a pretty common practice even today. It's just as controversial as circumcision. In my searches, I came upon a few sites that even compared or categorized tonsillectomy with circumcision. What I post below is just what I've found. It just sounded to me like tisonlyi believes all tonsils should be removed. In which case, I think that's pretty ironic considering his whole spiel about barbarism.

Quote:

Other examples of misdirected therapy based on a myth or mistaken paradigms are the ritual surgeries of the past and present. Through the first three quarters of the twentieth century it was almost a given that children would have their tonsils removed if they had more than a few episodes of sore throat. Even though by the 1950's there were antibiotics to treat strep throat, the only treatable cause of sore throat, the bulk of the remainder being viral, it was thought that removal of the easily infected tonsils would decrease not only sore throat incidence but other respiratory infections, poor appetite, allergic symptoms, etc. Studies were done that showed that only those with quite frequent strep throat would benefit by tonsil removal. Children normally have quite large tonsils relative to adults, but the size has not been related to frequency of infection, and the natural history is one of gradual diminishing size with age. As the medical paradigm shifted, the number of tonsillectomies performed annually in the U.S. peaked at 1.4 million in 1959.

A more current controversy is that of circumcision of the newborn, the surgical removal of the foreskin of male newborns, which is actually a religious ritual for those of some faiths. And, although done on 90 % of American male infants, male circumcision is not the norm in other developed as well as developing nations. The medical myths that circumcision prevents cancer, HIV, urinary tract and other infections have been the reason for this surgery. Recently, after careful review of studies done over the last 40 years, the pediatric professional society has come out with the statement that the medical " benefits are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure." Other examples of surgery abandoned or modified because of changing understanding of disease processes or major shifts in thinking would be the trend to remove less breast tissue in breast cancer and the move from total removal of the ruptured or lacerated spleen to partial splenectomy, operative repair and even observation without operation.

http://www.soberforever.net/program_research1.cfm
Both tonsillectomy and circumcision are categorized as ritual surgeries that are controversial.

Quote:

History of the Procedure: Tonsillectomy was first described in India in 1000 BC. The procedure increased in popularity in the 1800s, when a tonsillectomy or partial removal of the tonsil was performed. Part of the tonsil was left behind, which frequently hypertrophied and caused recurrence of the obstruction. By the early part of the 20th century, the prevalence of tonsil disease was recognized and the necessity of complete tonsillectomy appreciated.

A little bit of history on tonsillectomy.

Quote:

Frequency: Though tonsillectomy is performed less often than it once was, it is still among the most common surgical procedures performed on children in the United States. In 1959, 1.4 million tonsillectomies were performed in the United States. By 1987, this figure had dropped to 260,000; at that time, it was the 24th most common indication for hospital admission. Indications for tonsillectomy, which formerly consisted primarily of infections, have evolved to upper airway obstruction.

http://www.emedicine.com/ent/byname/tonsillectomy.htm
In 1987, it was still a pretty common surgery.

Quote:

Changes in the prevalence of tonsillectomy and circumcision in eleven year olds are described in two birth cohorts spaced 12 years apart. Both types of operation were less prevalent in the later (1958) cohort; tonsillectomy fell by a fifth and circumcision by more than half. These falls were confined to tonsillectomy before the age of six and circumcision under one year. Social class differences in tonsillectomy were found in both cohort studies but the strong social class gradient in circumcision reported in the 1946 cohort had vanished in the 1958. Regional and birth rank differences are found for both types of operation; these show substantial changes over time. These results are discussed in the context of changing professional opinions about the worth of these operations.

http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/conte...lcode=intjepid
I would have liked to read the entire article, but I could only find the abstract.

Quote:

When it is realised that the incredible increase in poliomyelitis which took place between 1940 and 1950 was due, at least in part, to the errors of tonsillectomy (45-46)...

http://www.whale.to/m/nightingale.html
There were some other sites that I forgot to bookmark that also attributed an increase in polio to tonsillectomies.

Quote:

In the first half of this century, great enthusiasm existed for tonsillectomies, which were considered by some to be a "public health measure," [63] and they were performed for minimal symptomatology. Baker [4] describes an incident occurring in about 1920: [...]
Skepticism about the appropriate indications for tonsillectomy developed in the next few decades. Paradise [65] credits this to (1) the natural decline in the incidence of upper respiratory infections in children with age, (2) an increased risk for poliomyelitis after tonsillectomy prior to the availability of an effective vaccine, (3) the development of antimicrobial agents for treating upper respiratory infections, and (4) studies purporting that tonsil and adenoid surgery was ineffective. The number of tonsillectomies performed annually peaked at 1.4 million in 1959 and then declined. [63]

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~ofattal/tonsilsarticle.htm
One of the better explanations for the decline in popularity of tonsillectomy.

Quote:

Nowadays, we are proud to know that not every tonsil needs to be removed. However, I suspect that we would get quite similar laws of nature if only we investigated more modern ailments, such as allergies.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8</a>
This article uses tonsillectomy as an example in the introduction. The intro gives you an idea of how many children were elected for tonsillectomy in the past.

Quote:

Over the past few decades doctors have come to the conclusion that removing tonsils surgically could result in bleeding and other complications and isn't always the answer for recurring sore throats. "In the 1950s and 1960s a lot of tonsillectomies were performed. It was almost a rite of passage for a child," says Dr. Godley. "Now we're much more selective."

New Tonsil Policies

These days, doctors remove tonsils for more specific reasons: tonsils that are chronically seriously inflamed or unusually enlarged, Dr. Godley notes. In addition, a doctor will consider removing the tonsils if they have an infection that might spread to other areas of the throat--or if enlarged tonsils are interfering with breathing.

http://www.mothernature.com/Library/...ooks/32/95.cfm
This is a pretty good article that explains tonsillectomy. These days, doctors weigh the benefits from disadvantages much more than they used to.

Quote:

When is the correct time to remove the tonsils--or adenoids--or both? If this were the early 60's, all four patients would have had their tonsils removed long ago.

Let me try to explain why some patients should have their tonsils or adenoids removed, and others not.

http://www.informedparent.com/articl...icle=4.tonsils
Another good article on tonsillectomy as explained to a parent with a child who may potentially need it.

I'm not circumcised, and wouldn't have my son circumcised, on the grounds that he could do it later if he wanted to.
tisonlyi, it seems to me that dtheriault did indeed make an informed decision and have the procedure performed for the right reasons, as well as other informed decisions. Like not having cable television and providing his child with an abundance of books (kill your television!). I think you are maybe being a little harsh on the guy. Like I said, I'm not cut, and I don't hold anything against him for having his child circumcised.

"a little harsh" is an understatement.

I'm uncut and if I have a son I will leave him intact.
The foreskin isn't just a flap of skin, it does serve a purpose. It protects the glands and keeps them moist. And it is pleasurable to have it touched.

It's really easy to clean an uncircumcised penis to avoid infection and odor. Hop into the shower, pull the skin back and wash it with warm water. Sure, it smells if you don't clean it for a few days, but most of your body will start to stink if you don't take the time to wash yourself.

As far as looking like everyone else, your kids are going to be teased while growing up, period. Removing their foreskin so they look like the other boys in the locker-room (or their father for that matter) isn't going to make life any easier. If they want to look circumcised they can pull the skin back. It takes about 2 seconds and it isn't painful or permanent.

When I was younger I did wish I was circumcised. I was afraid girls would be put off when they saw my penis for the first time. In reality most girls don't even mention the fact that I'm uncut and the ones that have were curious (leading to a fun learning experience), not grossed out.

I'd bet the majority of the men that were circumcised at birth would have left themselves intact had they grown up with a foreskin. It's easy to say you don't miss something you've never really had.

No, I definitely would not circumsize my son, that choise I would leave to him.

Unfortunatley I am circumsized and have regretted that I was circumcised at birth and therfore had no say on it.

1. No
2. Does not apply.

Where I live, you don't cut anything off. Yes, that's right, I'd say 99% of the men in this country has foreskin.

I wouldn't cut anything of a female child and I won't do it on a male child.

No and no. I think it's funny that we look at other cultures with such horror when they stretch their necks or bind their feet when we go around hacking off chucks 'o' cock.

I'm not particularly political about it as many people seem to be, but I heard someone make the argument that they like their circumcision because it helps someone else (in this case, a nurse) keep his or her sanity when they had to clean off his dork. TO me, that is just about the stupidest logic I've ever heard in my entire life. You cut off a chuck of your dick because you're worried about someone having to clean it later if you ever become so debilitated that you can't clean it yourself? I don't really care if people are circumsized, I don't think it's abuse, etc. etc. etc. But I think that saying you like it because it helps some nurse keep her lunch down in 2054 is absolutely hilarious.

Does anyone know what the percentages are of men that are against men who aren't? I figured us uncuts would be in the minority, but was curious to know just how "odd" I am.

Internationally, uncut is majority. United States is debatable. Many people feel circumcision is still the standard, but due to recent trends, it may no longer be this way. It'll take time, but eventually uncut will be acknowledged as a standard here.

People still think lactose intolerance came after lactose tolerancy, but it's the other way around. If you are lactose tolerant as an adult, you're part of the mutated/evolved gene pool that has learned to continue accepting milk as part of the diet after breastfeeding/puberty. In most people, after they've stopped breastfeeding, our bodies reject milk as a food item.

So it'll be a while I'm sure.

I don't think anyone should get circumsized until they can use pain killers and anasthetics.

1) No. If my son so chooses to be circumcised when he comes of age, then that is his decision. I will not make it for him when he is unable to speak for himself. You can always take the foreskin away but you can never grow it back.

2) I am circumcised and bitter about it. I definately would not have done it if it were my choice.

No and No

For those of you having trouble relating to the comparison of the foreskin to necessary bodily organs and limbs...think of something slightly more useless.

You don't need your earlobs...they just get in the way of things. They can get dirty and infected or become cancerous. Chopping them off would eliminate coliflower ear in wrestlers and boxers.

Why don't we do it?

Because it's silly.

Circumsicion is silly and, frankly, people who do things just because others do them are also silly.

Besides....it costs extra.

the thing about the health benefits, is that there are none.

And as far as what ive read, there never were any. Yes there might have been a day when dirt etc got caught under the foreskin, but not anymore todays society. and evolution being evolution, there was a reason for it. you have a foreskin for many reason. one is to ensure a suplly of some fluid, i forget the name, smegma or something,

anyway. it was once believed that this fluid was dirty, as it smelled bad if not washed away occasionally. thats one reason people believe cuting started. anyway the fluid is actually antibacterial and keeps the penis safe from many diseases. without the foreskin the fluid drys away and cant come back therefore exposing the penis to infection it would have otherwise been protected from.

1. HELL NO
2. I dont want to have anything cut off

Cutting pieces off of your body is just yuck. Why not just chop of some of your fingers? No one is cutting my or my son's fiddly bits.

Yes
Yes, and already have.

The reasons are: Cleanliness (not a huge issue, but it does make it easier), appearance (like mentioned, in the US it seems much more common) and personal choice.

As for the root reasons behind it, it had to do with sanitation a long time ago (when people were not able to bathe regularly) and became religious practice in some sects.

If I had a male child, I would not have his penis cut. I'd want him to have the choice I didn't.
I'm cut, and wish I weren't.

Quote:

Originally posted by forseti-6
And I don't see how the foreskin has gotten any healthier.

True, having a foreskin hasn't gotten any healthier. Our knowlege of hygine has, therefore what was once though of as unhealthy is now known not to be.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kulsonv2
By that logic we should pull out our teeth because we MIGHT let them rot so bad that they'll become infected.

Your comparing apples and oranges. A human would have a much harder time living without teeth than without a foreskin.

That being said, I am cut. When I have a son I will not cut him.

From what I've heard, it origionated as a religious way to keep men fron masturbating.

Quote:

Originally posted by ibis
That being said, I am cut. When I have a son I will not cut him.

Sir, I salute you. It seems rare these days to come across a man who is cut, but will not subject his son to the same.

Most of the reasoning seems to be that "it's healthier", which is bullshit, or that "so he will look like his dad or the other boys", which is ridiculous.

I am cut, doesnt bother me.

I have two sons, neither have been circumcised. My wife and I felt that it is an uneccesary procedure.

And NO, I don't worry that he will wonder why he's different than Daddy, or the boys at school. I have better things to worry about.

I understand the arguements for it, in regards to potential hygiene and/or health problems. But, again, keep the darn thing clean and you shouldn't have a whole lot to worry about. Anything else, tight foreskin, chaffing, whatever, can usually be taken care of easily enough, WITHOUT CIRCUMCISION. I'm with a lot of folks here, if your foreskin gets to the point of NEEDING to be cut off, you probably should have done something about it a little sooner. Granted, there probably is that rare case where it was malformed from birth or something, but again, RARE!

I know this sentiment is starting to sound like a broken record, but, circumcision is like pulling teeth so you don't get cavities.

I'm a girl, and if I had a boy, I would have him circumcised. It's the American way, right? :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally posted by la petite moi
I'm a girl, and if I had a boy, I would have him circumcised. It's the American way, right? :rolleyes:

It seems like you're only being partially sarcastic. If you are critical of circumcisions popularity why would you have it done anyway?

U.S. gov't statistics broken down by region and ethnicity:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pub...cumcisions.htm

Obviously-biased-in-presentation worldwide statistics:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/majority.htm

About.com: http://menshealth.about.com/cs/menon...umcision_3.htm

Quote:

Ethical and Human Right Considerations

Many medical bodies consider that circumcision should not be carried out as a routine procedure. The American Academy of Pediatrics say the benefits of circumcision are “not significant enough” to recommend routine circumcision. Other bodies include the Australasian Pediatric surgeons, The Canadian Pediatric Society. It is becoming more established that the removal of normal genitalia should be delayed until the individual can give informed consent themselves.

CIRP (Circumcision Information and Resource Pages)'s U.S. statistics, see the graph for 1870-2000:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2003/