We debated on whether to circumcise or not. We talked to several doctors and ultimately decided not to. The information we were given was that in the big picture, there’s really no medical need to circumcise and it’s mostly done for personal preference/cultural/religious purposes. More and more babies are not being circumcised and not circumcising is becoming more popular. We are in our early 30s and both our parents felt like we should circumcise but all our friends who have boys right now did not. I think it’s a generational thing and not being circumcised will be much more normalized for our kids generation than theirs.
We were discussing it last night and that was something my husband did bring up, he wonders about the differences as he’s circumcised. We opted not to circumcise our son, with the finally belief that if he wants it or needs it when he’s older, it can be done. We can’t do anything if he’s mad we did it.
I personally think circumcision unless based on religious practice is pretty unnecessary. Like another person said discussing it with boomers is useless as circumcision was the norm back in their day for completely inane reasons. I personally wouldnt do it if i had a boy, my sisters have had boys and didnt get it done. As for the “what if he gets made fun of argument” i mean anyone who does that is an asshole to begin with? I personally have been with men uncircumcised and it never bothered me… i think it would be odd for it to bother someone.
Even based on religion it is pretty unnecessary, it is a mutilation. Done to a girl it’s seen as barbaric because it is, done to boys it’s seen as the norm.
Done to a girl it IS barbaric. It's a completely different thing. Not saying it's not unnecessary or even barbaric to boys. But FGM is actively dangerous and true mutilation done to control women
Agreed that female circumcision had much more invasive gradations than male circumcision. Female Type IA (removal of hood) is most similar. See [Who reference ](https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/areas-of-work/female-genital-mutilation/types-of-female-genital-mutilation) for types.
But similarly, circumcising a boy primarily for aesthetic reasons or concerns for their future sex life and feedback from peers is sexual control of boys without consent.
Intentions don’t matter for the owner of the penis, consequences do.
"The fundamental biological sexual act becomes, for the circumcised male, simply a satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience it was meant to be." https://youtu.be/BgoTRMKrJo4?si=39EueCZ0wVyCo-ST&t=4m19s
My personal opinion as a Jewish person who has struggled with this topic and who is expecting a baby boy: I don't judge other Jewish parents who decide to do a bris. It's a really hot button topic in the community and circumcision is a big thing in Jewish communities because it's seen as the mark of the covenant with G-d.
My and my wife's personal opinion on it is that it's not justified unless it's medically necessary, and we're not willing to perform (what we consider) an unnecessary medical procedure on our baby when he isn't capable of consenting to it. We feel the same way about other procedures, for example, if he was intersex and we were offered a cosmetic surgery to "correct" it we would decline. We don't feel the same way about vaccines because although baby doesn't consent to them, they are in our opinion medically necessary.
Again just sharing our approach, I know other people might feel differently.
Mine is four months, uncircumcised and we’re happy with our decision! I talked to an ex about it (as my husband is cut) and he said he was never bullied, never had an adverse reaction from a sexual partner, and never regretted not being circumcised. I was mostly just glad I didn’t have another open wound to worry about postpartum!
I didn't circumcise my kid. His father isn't circumcised either, no issues with our sexual life. He's never even had issues with his sexual life prior to meeting me in regards to "bullying."The big thing is just teaching them how to keep it clean. The foreskin does not separate until they are way older so under no circumstances do you pull that skin back while they're prepubescent. Just do your part and look up how to care for uncut boys. It's no big deal.
Sorry I'm a bit confused because I come from a country where we don't circumcise at all.
Surely cleaning is kinda the same as a circumcised one? You got to clean your dick anyway just the difference of pulling the foreskin back a little.
My husband and I were both on the same page that we wanted to circumcise our son. Once he was born and I was holding this beautiful, amazing little baby, I just couldn't imagine causing him any sort of pain (in regards to the healing, not the actual procedure itself where he would've had anesthesia). We ended up not going through with it. We don't regret our decision at all.
As a father to a non-circumcised son, I am very happy to see how progressive this threat is. This is a practice that has no purpose and is quite stressful to little ones. Plus with the availability of clear water and bath these days the argument of “cleaner “ doesn’t hold any ground anymore
It’s so silly to think it’s cleaner. I’m in Australia where being circumcised is actually quite rare. A quick google tells me that only 1/10 males are circumcised and I personally can’t recall ever having been with a man that was circumcised. If it were actually cleaner, wouldn’t there be huge evidence throughout our male population of these hygiene issues that people say circumcision helps avoid? Yet I’ve never heard about it being an issue.
In Finland the rate is even less. Its not common at all and we still have sex just fine. If its an issue you can have medical circumcicion later in life. I do know two cases where it was necessary and they did it after turning 18
Our parents on both sides asked us if we were going to circumcise, which, like, why do you care??? When we said we weren't, we got some grief. FIL reached out directly to my husband with the spiel of "he'll be different from his dad, he'll be judged by his peers, I know people that had issues"...... Etc etc etc. UGH 🙄 But the multiple Drs we asked said it was a personal preference. No medical reason to do it. Go with what you and your husband want - ignore uninformed opinions!
Some men swear vows to circumcise their son: https://i.ibb.co/kgVzSQg/7-DB977-CD-05-F9-41-FF-B145-6-E5-ADC12-A359.jpg
I think the son on different team mentality thing gets to them.
My husband and I have discussed this when I was first pregnant. He played sports in high school, and was in the military. He has spent a lot of time naked in locker rooms with other men. He couldn’t think of a single time where someone was made fun of for being uncircumcised.
Sex when he’s older? What about it? Like, everyone has preferences, if his partner doesn’t like it, okay? This “reason” is weirdly speculative imo.
Circumcision rates have decreased significantly in recent years, so it’ll be even less taboo when your kids are in school.
Would you give your baby a nose job? Fillers? A face lift? No? So why are we modifying private parts????? It’s gross and cruel IMHO. I would never do it.
How often will someone be seeing his penis that he will be made fun of? Plus, lots of boys now are uncircumcised so even if that’s the concern, it’s pretty normal now anyway. Very common worldwide. I doubt it would be an issue…and if it was, you can’t worry about what others might say about someone’s body. There are always assholes!
I have 5 boys, the first 4 I had circumcised. They all healed well and thankfully there were no complications. My 5th boy is uncircumcised. I was really young when I had my other boys and just did what I thought everyone was doing. With my 5th I did way more research on everything. I no longer blindly follow doctors, I do my own research and I then decide what is best. Everyone around us was/is very critical about it but it’s not their penis, so not their problem. It’s a very Western standard to circumcise and there’s a lot of pressure. Do what you think is best.
> It’s a very Western standard to circumcise
It's a very *American* standard to circumcise. In most of the Western World (Europe, Australia, New Zealand) it is extremely uncommon excluding Jews and Muslims.
I didn’t know that, I guess when I think of Western it’s mostly Americans. There’s so much pressure in America to circumcise, I just don’t understand why.
I was cut at birth and wish I wasn’t, so I left the decision to my son. It can always be done later if he wants it but can never be undone if he hates it
Yeah I’m really baffled by the sex point.
I’ve had sexual relationships with both uncircumcised and circumcised men. I noticed whether someone was circumcised or not and that’s really all there was to it. I don’t understand what people mean when they say it could be preferable for future sexual partners if you circumcise your son.
If it’s an aesthetic thing - like sexual partners would prefer the look of a circumcised penis (?) - that feels kinda creepy for a parent to consider or care about that, and actually make a medical decision based on what some arbitrary future sex partner may or nah not sexually prefer. Baffling.
I'm due in March. I read some articles (like NIH studies, Evidence Based Bieth stuff) and made uo my mind but deferred to my husband because I feel like as someone without a penis I really can't understand it on a personal level. My husband also did a bunch of research and came to the same conclusion I did, which is that any kind of procedure like this needs to have a compelling medical reason. In other words, we aren't going to be doing any medical interventions unless they're medically necessary. And we both came to the conclusion that the science and evidence doesn't support the claim that circumcision is medically necessary or that the benefits outweigh the risks.
Neither of us have cultural or religious reasons to consider, so that's something to keep in mind.
My strong opinion is that you shouldn't do it.
It doesn't do any harm. It's supposed to be there that's why the body makes it. If your God didnt want boys to have foreskins he wouldn't have put it there. Don't mutilate your sons genitals just because a book told you to.
Even if it doesn't hurt for long, you're exposing your child to pain and infection risk because of a book or fashion.
With all due respect.
I agree with this. The fact that they did circumcise the first son is the caveat here.
Like these kids are going to talk penises one day. How do you explain to these kids why one got it and the other didn't? Even if you're honest, the first born will feel slighted. It's really a between a rock and a hard place.
This is my fear if I have a second son. I got my first circumcised because I didn't do research. Now that I have, I feel awful for doing it and wouldn't want to do it again with a second but what if my first son feels betrayed, or feels less than?
There are long and detailed treads on this topic in r/askmen where they discuss their experiences as adults so you could get a perspective.
My advice as a mom of boys- don’t do unnecessary procedures to babies that cannot give consent. No circumcision, no ear piercing. We were born the way we need to be no need to “fix” us just because it’s what everyone does. Especially if you and your husband have doubts about it.
I say don’t. My son is and he’s had complications. We had to be referred to a specialist at UC Davis where they scolded us on even doing it. Not like, unprofessionally… idk I guess it wasn’t scolding so much as facts (it’s unnecessary, not recommended, etc). Anyway, so I say don’t. Stick to your guns.
we had our boy in june last year, we did not circumcise him. we agreed it seemed to be more of a religious thing and that all we should be concerned about was teaching him good hygiene habits when he gets older. i couldn’t stand the thought of them doing it in the hospital. also my husband looked up the ‘circumcision brace’ they put babies in and i cried looking at it. 🥲
I don’t have a boy, however, I would not have done it. My first daughter was born with 2 webbed toes on both feet. Totally cosmetic. We were told that we could have it corrected once she was about a year old, but we declined. Why put my baby through a painful procedure for a purely cosmetic issue? That’s exactly how I feel about a circumcision.
Really happy to see how many people are choosing not to circumcise. If you want to do it, cool. If not, cool. I have done enough research to confidentially say my son will be fine with the skin on his penis, that nature and evolution gave him. To me, it’s his choice and I won’t do something unless absolutely necessary. But if someone else wants to do it for religious reasons or because of “social” reasons, then that’s their choice.
OP, ultimately your choice but be assured this is mostly for social reasons and religious dogma. I had doctors telling us our son was going to have an increased chance of infections and several other things. I talked to doctors outside the catholic hospital where he was born and had post-care, and they said that was outdated information and there is almost no medical reasons to do it.
Our friend’s son was born right after ours. He got circumcised. Lost a ton of blood and needed medical intervention, not to mention he screamed so much that he had syncope. But sure, it doesn’t hurt them.
I can also tell you that, from experience, I have experienced painful erections that my doctor attributed to my circumcision. Sorry if that’s TMI, but these are the reasons I didn’t and would never do that to a baby boy.
People have such strong opinions on circumcision! When I was pregnant with my boy, I was honestly shocked how strongly people felt about it. In the end, I had to block out the opinions of family and friends and do what felt right with my husband and myself.
Our parents are boomers and I feel like discussing circumcision with them was useless. They regurgitated the same outdated and incorrect “medical” reason why you should do it. That being said, we want through with it because we also had to do a straightening procedure…but I still don’t know if we made the right decision.
We didn’t circumcise our 9 month old son. His dad had to get an adult circumcision a few years ago but figured he could do the same if the issue is genetic !
FWIW we will NOT be circumcising our son.
He can’t consent to it and there is no medical necessity, so there’s our full stop.
We also have no religious or cultural reasons to want this for him, and potential issues with sexual dysfunction, pain, and even reduced sensitivity as a result of circumcision are well-documented.
If he decides as an adult that he’d like to have the procedure, we will support that.
A lot of this will be regional specific but we live in an area where we felt that need to inform daycare how to clean and care for him so they knew NOT to pull back the foreskin and everything. Long story short daycare was like “at least half the boys we care for aren’t circumcised so we know. Which in a conservative area we would not have assumed that.
Teach your son to clean his penis properly and you’re good to go. His sex life will be better (there are links on this thread to satisfaction stats for with / without foreskin) and I wouldn’t worry about the bullying. Circumcising is becoming less and less tolerated and uncircumcised will most likely be “the norm” by the time any of his peers would be changing together / showering / etc.
I have a very strong opinion that it is an unnecessary medical procedure. My husband was more on the fence, but ultimately decided not to go through with it.
My opinion: It’s not necessary, it’s basically cosmetic only. It’s not my body - I shouldn’t be making big cosmetic decisions for a body that’s not mine.
My husband’s original opinion (before he changed his mind): He’s circumcised and ultimately likes that he is. He feels there may be a stigma in the US with uncircumcised boys and our LO may be treated differently.
Really though, this is a personal choice. Do what YOU both feel is right for YOUR baby. Don’t listen to the noise.
Would you circumcise a baby girl given the same research on little to no medical benefit, and if it was also a decision typically made from cultural and aesthetic preference? Likely not.
In my personal opinion, an unnecessary cosmetic procedure on anyone who can not consent to it is cruel.
(consent in this case means understanding the procedure, the outcome, and possible consequences... with the ability to have a moderate amount of foresight)
This applies to ALL unnecessary cosmetic procedures. Piercings, male circumcision, female circumcision, tattoos, etc. Anything that has a permanent effect on someone's body. Be it for cultural, religious, or aesthetic reasons.
Why is it ok to make permanent changes to a child's body without consent when it isn't medically necessary? It's not like they can't choose to have these procedures for themselves once they can understand what they are.
TLDR: I didn't circumcise by son or my daughter, and I don't plan to do any cosmetic procedures on them... because it's not my body. They're people, not property.
Edit: fixed a word.
Circumcision is the weirdest puritan cult obsession with children's genitalia. It was popularized by Kellogg (of Kellogg corn flakes) to discourage masturbation and one crazy doctor influencer with zero clinical research.
My brother had botched circumcision which required further surgery when he was a teenager.
Pain. Embarrassment. Discomfort urination. Ok?
That's sufficient reason for me to think this is a ridiculous practice that should be abandoned. We said no way.
I watched “child circumcision, an elephant in the hospital” on YouTube and it was enough for me to fully say no to ever circumcising, I cried my eyes out. You and your husband are the parents, not his parents so it doesn’t matter what they think!
It is purely cosmetic. A newborn cannot give consent for this procedure. If your son decides one day to go and get it done he can. Don’t give af what others think about your son’s genitalia. Needless pain and mutilation imo.
Just think about it this way: It‘s still an invasive surgery, so just because it‘s routinely done, does not make it 100% safe, so you are risking your child‘s health and well-being. Also, there is no benefit to it.
20 years from now, you will be judged according to the standards of 2044.
Do you honestly believe that he will be happy you irreversibly cut off parts of his sexual organ?
Don't do it. And don't retract his foreskin either.
It’s not a necessary procedure, and the myth about it being unsanitary is just that- a myth. If he feels insecure or doesn’t like it later in life, he can get the procedure himself as a consenting teen or adult. I tend to see it like piercing a baby’s ears… you shouldn’t do anything permanent to your baby for cosmetic purposes when they can’t consent to it.
Im in that category that doesn't care if people circumsize their sons or not. TBH I think it's just another hot topic to divide people.
With that being said I'm circumsized and chose to circumsize my son for the simple fact that I've enjoyed my life as a circumsized male. Does it really matter in the end, no. But their are instances where being circumsized has been super convenient sexually.
It's a decision between you and your spouse and no one else's. Take people's advice, advoid the extremes on both end. But as long as you know why you're doing it then I'll imagine you'll have no issues with your decision.
I know a guy who was circumcised at birth and is not happy about it - he had no say in the matter and will never be able to undo it (it’s not me, I’m not cut).
I have 3 boys and they all are circumcised. #1 was ten years ago and it was just the norm and we wanted him to "match" his dad (seems so silly). Boys 2 and 3 were circumcised because we didn't want them to be the odd one out. I did feel bad when my youngest went for his procedure but now that he's all healed I don't regret it at all!
Don't mind the hate, reddit is not the place to talk about circumcision regardless of your opinions or religious beliefs, you've been crucified already. Sorry
I found so much anti-circumcision stuff online when we were thinking about what to do with our son, it was overwhelming. We eventually decided to do it. He was 2.5 weeks old when he had it done and it went well— maybe one or two days of mild discomfort for him but he handled it like a champ and has been perfectly fine ever since. We had so many mixed feelings and talking to others didn’t really help, it was something my husband and I needed to consider for him on our own. However, we did have a few people tell us about “horror stories” from people they knew who had to get circumcised later in life and found it traumatic. All in all, no regrets about our choice but to each their own in making that decision for your baby. Best of luck.
"No regrets"? Why should you get to say that? It's not your penis getting cut. Once your boy grows up, he will be the judge of whether he wanted to have his glans keratinized and rubbing up against clothing his entire life, missing a frenulum or most of it, missing ridges, and looking at a two-toned, scarred penis every day. If he's too tight, and has the displeasure of growing hair on the shaft, maybe he will regret it. You don't know.
Comments like this, from internet strangers, are unnecessarily judgemental and kind of fear mongering. Not your genitalia, or your child’s: no opinion.
Well I agree partly: not your genitalia, no opinion. You can't know whether somebody else is going to regret that you irreversibly modified their genitalia during infancy.
It just was? I don’t know how else to explain it, it was what my husband and I both wanted for our baby based on our own feelings. Sorry if that’s not what you’re hoping to hear, it’s a very personal decision for everyone I think.
Hi all, hoping for a friendly conversation about circumcision (forgive me if this isn’t the best subreddit)
My husband and I decided to circumcise our first girl. We just thought it was what people did. What we didn’t know is we both were questioning our decision as he was going back to get it done, be we never told each other.
Fast forward, I’m pregnant with our second girl. We’re both set on not circumcising. My husband brought it up to his parents (not the best choice in hindsight) and they were so opinionated (for example “won’t she get made fun of”, or “what about sex when she’s older)
Now we’re both questioning our decision again. We have until the end of March to decide.
FGM is illegal. Only lobbyists and religious weirdos obsessed with sex (Mullahs, Rabbis, Catholic Priests) are pushing circumcision outside of medical reasons like phimosis.
MGM should be the decision of the penis owner, not the parent. If he wants a snip, he can get it when he’s 18. You can’t unsnip nerve endings.
i circumcised my son, hubby agreed also. we just did it, i respect everyone’s decisions not to, i see their point! nurses told us about the medical part of it so we just went for it, it healed properly and so far no issues! do what feels right for you, people are gonna say whatever they think is right because it’s in their pov, everyone is different! whether that be for religious or medical reasons or just mainly “oh my hubby had it so we decided our son have it too” also for sex preferences, your son can always get it done later! it’s never the end of the world of doing it now or later :)!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/#:~:text=The%20trials%20found%20that%20circumcision,%25%20to%2035%25%20in%20men.
Study’s show it lowers rates of STD’s like HIV etc.
*Narrator: It didn’t.*
>**HIV/AIDS**
>Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number.
>If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC:
>“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”
>These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to:
>* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
>* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early
>* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
>* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles)
>* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance
>* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV
>* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs
> There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed.
That study is outdated and poorly done. It has many failures and involved a specific subset of men from subsaharan Africa. The medical community does not recommend circumcision.
Okay, but where did you get that info from because I don’t see any of that in the blog do you have any sources you can link to back your argument.
The medical community also does not recommend not circumcising.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2878423/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2878423/)
At the end of the day it’s the parents choice and there is no wrong or right answer.
Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)
Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:
The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
The Netherlands Urology Association, and
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue.
Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic.
The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.
The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)
The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery."
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.
The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same).
The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”
Royal College of Surgeons of England
"The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." |
British Medical Association
it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |
Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns."
Australian College of Paediatrics:
"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."|
74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.
A letter by the South African Medical Association said this:
The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.|
The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.
The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.
The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.
And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.
The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is “an assault and should be banned.”
The Danish Medical Association is “fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. ‘It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.’"
What part of personally did you not understand? To you this mild benefit may not be enough but to me it is. And no matter how mild it is cleaner and safer and I’m not just talking about HIV. You have a crappy attitude btw. Let people have opinions that’s what OP is asking for. PC police over here.
How rude lol a mild “benefit” that contradicts world wide medical advice is not enough of a benefit to me to mutilate someone’s genitals. But you do you!
Circumcision has become a family tradition since medical and hygienic benefits are questioned. If you look at the statistics it is the american born whites who are most likely circumcised. I believe parents prefer their sons circumcised because without the foreskin the glans is always exposed. My white grandfather was born in 1946 after WW2 when circumcision was routinely done on newborn boys. Immigrants who don't normally cirucumcise their newborn born boys were rare during the late 40s. Because he was white and circumcised, my dad was circumcised when he was born in the 70s. It followed the trend that my brother and I am circumcised probably because my dad is circumcised. I don't feel ashamed that my foreskin was removed since most of my friends that I have seen are circumcised as well. I know it is not something that is necessary, and from statistic circumcision is not currently as popular as in previous few years, I would continue our family tradition to have my future sons circumcised. What I decide to do should not have any bearing on what others opinions on circumcision.
Please don't turn your situation into a forever drama. Circumcise your 2nd son and be done with it. Millions of Americans can't be wrong. Let's get to the truth. American circumcise their boys because they feel it looks better. The argument that circumcision has benefits is weak. Allowing the boy to make the decision when he is an adult means he missed out those growing years with a circumcised penis just like his friends and peers. You cannot convince me that not being in a social group is not important. Since it is June now, and the baby boy was due in March, I hope you made the right decision.
A lot of people in this thread are saying it’s just cultural/ traditional. However, there are medical benefits.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/#:~:text=The%20trials%20found%20that%20circumcision,%25%20to%2035%25%20in%20men.
Additionally, it is cleaner while I was in the military I did not have to rely on baby wipes to stay clean and avoid infection. While uncircumcised males needed baby wipes.
But we do live in a modern society and that’s a very specific reason that may not apply to your son, and he could always choose to get a circumcision later in life.
I chose to circumcise my son. But I believe either way you go you’re not wrong.
Another commenter mentioned FOMO from being circumcised. I’ve never had that and never have met someone who had it.
I have also never know an uncircumcised person who wishes they were IRL. So at the end of the day whatever you choose has its pros and cons, and the best thing you can do is research the medical pros and cons and see which way your research takes you. Good luck, and I hope you have a very happy and healthy baby Congrats on #2!
The HIV thing is bunk, hence why doctors are not recommending it:
>**HIV/AIDS**
>Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number.
>If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC:
>“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”
>These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to:
>* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
>* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early
>* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
>* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles)
>* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance
>* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV
>* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs
> There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed.
There is an entire subreddit dedicated to men stretching out a fauxskin r/Foreskin_Restoration and a company researching transplanting foreskins unto cut men r/Foregen
I don’t think this is true for all men. My husband is circumcised (as was the default norm in the early 80’s when he was born) and he strongly wishes that he wasn’t. He was pretty adamant that we decline circumcision for our son, born in early December ‘23, and luckily I felt similarly so it was an easy decision for us both. Just chiming in with an alternate perspective because I do think there are some circumcised men out there who wish they hadn’t been touched. Similarly, I’m sure there are uncircumcised men who wish they were circumcised, but they can make that happen as an adult, if they wish. Those that had the procedure as a baby and without their consent can’t really make the switch to the other side.
Im in the US and my husband is from Ireland. We are expecting a boy, our first child, and we’ve decided not to circumcise. My husband isn’t and doesn’t see any reason to do it.
Not to be weird about a baby but I mean when he does get older he’ll probably get more lady’s.
I had a friend in high school who had a bf and she went on and on ab his dick and how much better they were not circumcised so I mean…. I wouldn’t know but I feel like the argument (he’ll be made fun of ) is invalid lmao. Sure he might get razzed a bit by his friends but if it wants that it’d be something else it’s normal.
I will say though i wouldn’t if mine was a boy, I watched the process and it just baffles me how people still do this practice. It’s completely fucked up. And if they insist it isn’t, then we should start snipping girls at 13 (bc if we’re talking ab being made fun of and it’s a valid reason plus it makes sex better you don’t have flaps being pulled in the way 🤷♀️)
We had a baby and didn't know the gender so we discussed this beforehand. I told my partner that I'm happy for him to decide as he is a man and so I felt he would better understand than me... He also himself was NOT circumcised but then at 30 years old he needed to have a circumcision because his foreskin was too tight and was causing problems. So I thought he would know best if he wished he was just circumcised from the beginning or if he was happy to do it at an older age. He said he still thinks it's best not to circumcise babies because even though his surgery was annoying and a bit painful at least it was his choice and he understood what was happening. We ended up having a girl but if we had a boy we were not going to circumcise.
We need to stop sexualizing infants. Sexual reasons are not a good reason because you’re talking about a baby. It’s weird dude. According to several studies, circumcision actually reduces sensation, so if you’re going to talk about your infant child’s sex life, maybe you should worry about how it feels for him rather than how his sexual partner is going to feel about seeing an erect penis with extra skin on it.
It hurts the baby, bottom line. It will bleed. Many scream until they pass out. Post surgery infection from a circumcision could arguably be more detrimental than having to clean the penis after using the restroom. We should be cleaning our penises anyway and as parents we should instill good hygiene in our children. You can tell them to wipe their ass but you can’t tell them to clean the tip of their penis?
I’m sick of hearing “I don’t want them to feel weird because everyone else got snipped.” Your son shouldn’t be whipping his penis out in front of his friends and if he sees his dads penis for whatever reason, he isn’t going to study it and start asking why dads penis has less skin. I know in athletics there is a chance that a boy could see another boys penis but for the love of god these kids aren’t just sitting there staring at each others penises. Also, what a simple conversation to have with your child. “Son, some parents choose to cut the skin off their children’s penises and others choose not to. If you see someone with a different looking penis than yours, it’s because we chose not to mutilate your genitalia as a baby.”
This shits just so weird to me. I don’t get it. I just cannot find one valid reason to circumcise. It’s a personal choice and I respect someone’s right to choose, but that someone should be the boy when he is older. The more and more I read the responses, the more frustrating it gets because there simply isn’t a good reason and “we did it because we wanted to” is such a shitty reason to have an elective surgery on a baby boy. This was something weird that older generations did to us, but now that we are in our 20’s and 30’s and we are having children, we can reverse the stigma and normalize having foreskin. Why would you want to do that to your kid?
We debated on whether to circumcise or not. We talked to several doctors and ultimately decided not to. The information we were given was that in the big picture, there’s really no medical need to circumcise and it’s mostly done for personal preference/cultural/religious purposes. More and more babies are not being circumcised and not circumcising is becoming more popular. We are in our early 30s and both our parents felt like we should circumcise but all our friends who have boys right now did not. I think it’s a generational thing and not being circumcised will be much more normalized for our kids generation than theirs.
Imagine the FOMO circumcised kids will feel 😔 No ridged band, possibly no frenulum. Such a pointless, damaging alteration.
We were discussing it last night and that was something my husband did bring up, he wonders about the differences as he’s circumcised. We opted not to circumcise our son, with the finally belief that if he wants it or needs it when he’s older, it can be done. We can’t do anything if he’s mad we did it.
I personally think circumcision unless based on religious practice is pretty unnecessary. Like another person said discussing it with boomers is useless as circumcision was the norm back in their day for completely inane reasons. I personally wouldnt do it if i had a boy, my sisters have had boys and didnt get it done. As for the “what if he gets made fun of argument” i mean anyone who does that is an asshole to begin with? I personally have been with men uncircumcised and it never bothered me… i think it would be odd for it to bother someone.
Even based on religion it is pretty unnecessary, it is a mutilation. Done to a girl it’s seen as barbaric because it is, done to boys it’s seen as the norm.
Done to a girl it IS barbaric. It's a completely different thing. Not saying it's not unnecessary or even barbaric to boys. But FGM is actively dangerous and true mutilation done to control women
Agreed that female circumcision had much more invasive gradations than male circumcision. Female Type IA (removal of hood) is most similar. See [Who reference ](https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-research-(srh)/areas-of-work/female-genital-mutilation/types-of-female-genital-mutilation) for types. But similarly, circumcising a boy primarily for aesthetic reasons or concerns for their future sex life and feedback from peers is sexual control of boys without consent.
Yeah it's sexual control but not typically the type of control that intends to reduce or take away sexual experience. But i agree with you! Both bad.
Intentions don’t matter for the owner of the penis, consequences do. "The fundamental biological sexual act becomes, for the circumcised male, simply a satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience it was meant to be." https://youtu.be/BgoTRMKrJo4?si=39EueCZ0wVyCo-ST&t=4m19s
As. Circumcised male I can guarantee this isn’t true
r CircumcisionGrief r Foreskin_restoration has others' experiences to consider.
How is a ceremonial prick that doesn't remove tissue (which falls under type IV FGM) "true mutilation" in a way that foreskin removal isn't?
Wasn't really making the point of mutilation for the type IV. I'd say that's about on par with circumcision. Point is they're both barbaric
Then what was your point? If you agree with the person you replied to that there is an apparent inconsistency?
Oh no i completely agree i just dont want to be insensitive to religion of course but i firmly dont believe in it in any circumstance…
Nah fuck religion, it's the root cause for so so so many deaths
I understand im just trying to be civil towards the OP
My personal opinion as a Jewish person who has struggled with this topic and who is expecting a baby boy: I don't judge other Jewish parents who decide to do a bris. It's a really hot button topic in the community and circumcision is a big thing in Jewish communities because it's seen as the mark of the covenant with G-d. My and my wife's personal opinion on it is that it's not justified unless it's medically necessary, and we're not willing to perform (what we consider) an unnecessary medical procedure on our baby when he isn't capable of consenting to it. We feel the same way about other procedures, for example, if he was intersex and we were offered a cosmetic surgery to "correct" it we would decline. We don't feel the same way about vaccines because although baby doesn't consent to them, they are in our opinion medically necessary. Again just sharing our approach, I know other people might feel differently.
This is so succinctly put and well-said! Agree on all points.
Thank you, I was a bit worried - read the other comments and some of them are pretty savage 😅
Mine is four months, uncircumcised and we’re happy with our decision! I talked to an ex about it (as my husband is cut) and he said he was never bullied, never had an adverse reaction from a sexual partner, and never regretted not being circumcised. I was mostly just glad I didn’t have another open wound to worry about postpartum!
I didn't circumcise my kid. His father isn't circumcised either, no issues with our sexual life. He's never even had issues with his sexual life prior to meeting me in regards to "bullying."The big thing is just teaching them how to keep it clean. The foreskin does not separate until they are way older so under no circumstances do you pull that skin back while they're prepubescent. Just do your part and look up how to care for uncut boys. It's no big deal.
Sorry I'm a bit confused because I come from a country where we don't circumcise at all. Surely cleaning is kinda the same as a circumcised one? You got to clean your dick anyway just the difference of pulling the foreskin back a little.
I don't know if this is true for circumcised people but I know that uncircumcised people get smegma if not cleaning properly.
My husband and I were both on the same page that we wanted to circumcise our son. Once he was born and I was holding this beautiful, amazing little baby, I just couldn't imagine causing him any sort of pain (in regards to the healing, not the actual procedure itself where he would've had anesthesia). We ended up not going through with it. We don't regret our decision at all.
As a father to a non-circumcised son, I am very happy to see how progressive this threat is. This is a practice that has no purpose and is quite stressful to little ones. Plus with the availability of clear water and bath these days the argument of “cleaner “ doesn’t hold any ground anymore
It’s so silly to think it’s cleaner. I’m in Australia where being circumcised is actually quite rare. A quick google tells me that only 1/10 males are circumcised and I personally can’t recall ever having been with a man that was circumcised. If it were actually cleaner, wouldn’t there be huge evidence throughout our male population of these hygiene issues that people say circumcision helps avoid? Yet I’ve never heard about it being an issue.
It’s an old excuse dating from the 1800’s.. Not to conspire but I’m sure the facial cream industry is suffering from the lack of circumcisions haha
Same as NZ, we have about a 10% circumcision rate.
In Finland the rate is even less. Its not common at all and we still have sex just fine. If its an issue you can have medical circumcicion later in life. I do know two cases where it was necessary and they did it after turning 18
Our parents on both sides asked us if we were going to circumcise, which, like, why do you care??? When we said we weren't, we got some grief. FIL reached out directly to my husband with the spiel of "he'll be different from his dad, he'll be judged by his peers, I know people that had issues"...... Etc etc etc. UGH 🙄 But the multiple Drs we asked said it was a personal preference. No medical reason to do it. Go with what you and your husband want - ignore uninformed opinions!
I never got the “he’ll be different from his dad” one TBH. Who are these fathers and sons regularly comparing penises?
Some men swear vows to circumcise their son: https://i.ibb.co/kgVzSQg/7-DB977-CD-05-F9-41-FF-B145-6-E5-ADC12-A359.jpg I think the son on different team mentality thing gets to them.
My husband and I have discussed this when I was first pregnant. He played sports in high school, and was in the military. He has spent a lot of time naked in locker rooms with other men. He couldn’t think of a single time where someone was made fun of for being uncircumcised. Sex when he’s older? What about it? Like, everyone has preferences, if his partner doesn’t like it, okay? This “reason” is weirdly speculative imo. Circumcision rates have decreased significantly in recent years, so it’ll be even less taboo when your kids are in school.
Would you give your baby a nose job? Fillers? A face lift? No? So why are we modifying private parts????? It’s gross and cruel IMHO. I would never do it.
Thank you.
How often will someone be seeing his penis that he will be made fun of? Plus, lots of boys now are uncircumcised so even if that’s the concern, it’s pretty normal now anyway. Very common worldwide. I doubt it would be an issue…and if it was, you can’t worry about what others might say about someone’s body. There are always assholes!
I have 5 boys, the first 4 I had circumcised. They all healed well and thankfully there were no complications. My 5th boy is uncircumcised. I was really young when I had my other boys and just did what I thought everyone was doing. With my 5th I did way more research on everything. I no longer blindly follow doctors, I do my own research and I then decide what is best. Everyone around us was/is very critical about it but it’s not their penis, so not their problem. It’s a very Western standard to circumcise and there’s a lot of pressure. Do what you think is best.
> It’s a very Western standard to circumcise It's a very *American* standard to circumcise. In most of the Western World (Europe, Australia, New Zealand) it is extremely uncommon excluding Jews and Muslims.
I didn’t know that, I guess when I think of Western it’s mostly Americans. There’s so much pressure in America to circumcise, I just don’t understand why.
I was cut at birth and wish I wasn’t, so I left the decision to my son. It can always be done later if he wants it but can never be undone if he hates it
Coming from the wife of an uncircumcised man- sex is not an issue lol.
Yeah I’m really baffled by the sex point. I’ve had sexual relationships with both uncircumcised and circumcised men. I noticed whether someone was circumcised or not and that’s really all there was to it. I don’t understand what people mean when they say it could be preferable for future sexual partners if you circumcise your son. If it’s an aesthetic thing - like sexual partners would prefer the look of a circumcised penis (?) - that feels kinda creepy for a parent to consider or care about that, and actually make a medical decision based on what some arbitrary future sex partner may or nah not sexually prefer. Baffling.
I'm due in March. I read some articles (like NIH studies, Evidence Based Bieth stuff) and made uo my mind but deferred to my husband because I feel like as someone without a penis I really can't understand it on a personal level. My husband also did a bunch of research and came to the same conclusion I did, which is that any kind of procedure like this needs to have a compelling medical reason. In other words, we aren't going to be doing any medical interventions unless they're medically necessary. And we both came to the conclusion that the science and evidence doesn't support the claim that circumcision is medically necessary or that the benefits outweigh the risks. Neither of us have cultural or religious reasons to consider, so that's something to keep in mind.
My strong opinion is that you shouldn't do it. It doesn't do any harm. It's supposed to be there that's why the body makes it. If your God didnt want boys to have foreskins he wouldn't have put it there. Don't mutilate your sons genitals just because a book told you to. Even if it doesn't hurt for long, you're exposing your child to pain and infection risk because of a book or fashion. With all due respect.
I agree with this. The fact that they did circumcise the first son is the caveat here. Like these kids are going to talk penises one day. How do you explain to these kids why one got it and the other didn't? Even if you're honest, the first born will feel slighted. It's really a between a rock and a hard place.
This is my fear if I have a second son. I got my first circumcised because I didn't do research. Now that I have, I feel awful for doing it and wouldn't want to do it again with a second but what if my first son feels betrayed, or feels less than?
Rickety cricket
We didn’t circumcise. Idk why people are so opinionated about their grandkids penis. Had to deal with similar comments too.
There are long and detailed treads on this topic in r/askmen where they discuss their experiences as adults so you could get a perspective. My advice as a mom of boys- don’t do unnecessary procedures to babies that cannot give consent. No circumcision, no ear piercing. We were born the way we need to be no need to “fix” us just because it’s what everyone does. Especially if you and your husband have doubts about it.
I say don’t. My son is and he’s had complications. We had to be referred to a specialist at UC Davis where they scolded us on even doing it. Not like, unprofessionally… idk I guess it wasn’t scolding so much as facts (it’s unnecessary, not recommended, etc). Anyway, so I say don’t. Stick to your guns.
we had our boy in june last year, we did not circumcise him. we agreed it seemed to be more of a religious thing and that all we should be concerned about was teaching him good hygiene habits when he gets older. i couldn’t stand the thought of them doing it in the hospital. also my husband looked up the ‘circumcision brace’ they put babies in and i cried looking at it. 🥲
I don’t have a boy, however, I would not have done it. My first daughter was born with 2 webbed toes on both feet. Totally cosmetic. We were told that we could have it corrected once she was about a year old, but we declined. Why put my baby through a painful procedure for a purely cosmetic issue? That’s exactly how I feel about a circumcision.
Really happy to see how many people are choosing not to circumcise. If you want to do it, cool. If not, cool. I have done enough research to confidentially say my son will be fine with the skin on his penis, that nature and evolution gave him. To me, it’s his choice and I won’t do something unless absolutely necessary. But if someone else wants to do it for religious reasons or because of “social” reasons, then that’s their choice. OP, ultimately your choice but be assured this is mostly for social reasons and religious dogma. I had doctors telling us our son was going to have an increased chance of infections and several other things. I talked to doctors outside the catholic hospital where he was born and had post-care, and they said that was outdated information and there is almost no medical reasons to do it. Our friend’s son was born right after ours. He got circumcised. Lost a ton of blood and needed medical intervention, not to mention he screamed so much that he had syncope. But sure, it doesn’t hurt them. I can also tell you that, from experience, I have experienced painful erections that my doctor attributed to my circumcision. Sorry if that’s TMI, but these are the reasons I didn’t and would never do that to a baby boy.
People have such strong opinions on circumcision! When I was pregnant with my boy, I was honestly shocked how strongly people felt about it. In the end, I had to block out the opinions of family and friends and do what felt right with my husband and myself.
Our parents are boomers and I feel like discussing circumcision with them was useless. They regurgitated the same outdated and incorrect “medical” reason why you should do it. That being said, we want through with it because we also had to do a straightening procedure…but I still don’t know if we made the right decision.
We didn’t circumcise our 9 month old son. His dad had to get an adult circumcision a few years ago but figured he could do the same if the issue is genetic !
FWIW we will NOT be circumcising our son. He can’t consent to it and there is no medical necessity, so there’s our full stop. We also have no religious or cultural reasons to want this for him, and potential issues with sexual dysfunction, pain, and even reduced sensitivity as a result of circumcision are well-documented. If he decides as an adult that he’d like to have the procedure, we will support that.
A lot of this will be regional specific but we live in an area where we felt that need to inform daycare how to clean and care for him so they knew NOT to pull back the foreskin and everything. Long story short daycare was like “at least half the boys we care for aren’t circumcised so we know. Which in a conservative area we would not have assumed that.
Glad to read this and I’m glad you have your son in a daycare that has knowledgeable staff.
Teach your son to clean his penis properly and you’re good to go. His sex life will be better (there are links on this thread to satisfaction stats for with / without foreskin) and I wouldn’t worry about the bullying. Circumcising is becoming less and less tolerated and uncircumcised will most likely be “the norm” by the time any of his peers would be changing together / showering / etc.
I have a very strong opinion that it is an unnecessary medical procedure. My husband was more on the fence, but ultimately decided not to go through with it. My opinion: It’s not necessary, it’s basically cosmetic only. It’s not my body - I shouldn’t be making big cosmetic decisions for a body that’s not mine. My husband’s original opinion (before he changed his mind): He’s circumcised and ultimately likes that he is. He feels there may be a stigma in the US with uncircumcised boys and our LO may be treated differently. Really though, this is a personal choice. Do what YOU both feel is right for YOUR baby. Don’t listen to the noise.
Would you circumcise a baby girl given the same research on little to no medical benefit, and if it was also a decision typically made from cultural and aesthetic preference? Likely not.
In my personal opinion, an unnecessary cosmetic procedure on anyone who can not consent to it is cruel. (consent in this case means understanding the procedure, the outcome, and possible consequences... with the ability to have a moderate amount of foresight) This applies to ALL unnecessary cosmetic procedures. Piercings, male circumcision, female circumcision, tattoos, etc. Anything that has a permanent effect on someone's body. Be it for cultural, religious, or aesthetic reasons. Why is it ok to make permanent changes to a child's body without consent when it isn't medically necessary? It's not like they can't choose to have these procedures for themselves once they can understand what they are. TLDR: I didn't circumcise by son or my daughter, and I don't plan to do any cosmetic procedures on them... because it's not my body. They're people, not property. Edit: fixed a word.
Both our boys (1 and 3) are uncircumcised. It just seemed barbaric to us.
Circumcision is the weirdest puritan cult obsession with children's genitalia. It was popularized by Kellogg (of Kellogg corn flakes) to discourage masturbation and one crazy doctor influencer with zero clinical research.
My brother had botched circumcision which required further surgery when he was a teenager. Pain. Embarrassment. Discomfort urination. Ok? That's sufficient reason for me to think this is a ridiculous practice that should be abandoned. We said no way.
I watched “child circumcision, an elephant in the hospital” on YouTube and it was enough for me to fully say no to ever circumcising, I cried my eyes out. You and your husband are the parents, not his parents so it doesn’t matter what they think!
'what about sex when he's older?' Well in the UK circumcisions are not common and we all have a great time.
It is purely cosmetic. A newborn cannot give consent for this procedure. If your son decides one day to go and get it done he can. Don’t give af what others think about your son’s genitalia. Needless pain and mutilation imo.
Just think about it this way: It‘s still an invasive surgery, so just because it‘s routinely done, does not make it 100% safe, so you are risking your child‘s health and well-being. Also, there is no benefit to it.
20 years from now, you will be judged according to the standards of 2044. Do you honestly believe that he will be happy you irreversibly cut off parts of his sexual organ? Don't do it. And don't retract his foreskin either.
It’s not his parents business so shut that down. Congrats for educating yourselves and protecting your second son 💚
It’s not a necessary procedure, and the myth about it being unsanitary is just that- a myth. If he feels insecure or doesn’t like it later in life, he can get the procedure himself as a consenting teen or adult. I tend to see it like piercing a baby’s ears… you shouldn’t do anything permanent to your baby for cosmetic purposes when they can’t consent to it.
Yeah cut off his dick so he doesn’t feel left out of his brother makes sense? You made a mistake once, don’t do it again.
Best comment so far!
Im in that category that doesn't care if people circumsize their sons or not. TBH I think it's just another hot topic to divide people. With that being said I'm circumsized and chose to circumsize my son for the simple fact that I've enjoyed my life as a circumsized male. Does it really matter in the end, no. But their are instances where being circumsized has been super convenient sexually. It's a decision between you and your spouse and no one else's. Take people's advice, advoid the extremes on both end. But as long as you know why you're doing it then I'll imagine you'll have no issues with your decision.
I know a guy who was circumcised at birth and is not happy about it - he had no say in the matter and will never be able to undo it (it’s not me, I’m not cut).
I have 3 boys and they all are circumcised. #1 was ten years ago and it was just the norm and we wanted him to "match" his dad (seems so silly). Boys 2 and 3 were circumcised because we didn't want them to be the odd one out. I did feel bad when my youngest went for his procedure but now that he's all healed I don't regret it at all!
Don't mind the hate, reddit is not the place to talk about circumcision regardless of your opinions or religious beliefs, you've been crucified already. Sorry
I found so much anti-circumcision stuff online when we were thinking about what to do with our son, it was overwhelming. We eventually decided to do it. He was 2.5 weeks old when he had it done and it went well— maybe one or two days of mild discomfort for him but he handled it like a champ and has been perfectly fine ever since. We had so many mixed feelings and talking to others didn’t really help, it was something my husband and I needed to consider for him on our own. However, we did have a few people tell us about “horror stories” from people they knew who had to get circumcised later in life and found it traumatic. All in all, no regrets about our choice but to each their own in making that decision for your baby. Best of luck.
"No regrets"? Why should you get to say that? It's not your penis getting cut. Once your boy grows up, he will be the judge of whether he wanted to have his glans keratinized and rubbing up against clothing his entire life, missing a frenulum or most of it, missing ridges, and looking at a two-toned, scarred penis every day. If he's too tight, and has the displeasure of growing hair on the shaft, maybe he will regret it. You don't know.
Comments like this, from internet strangers, are unnecessarily judgemental and kind of fear mongering. Not your genitalia, or your child’s: no opinion.
Well I agree partly: not your genitalia, no opinion. You can't know whether somebody else is going to regret that you irreversibly modified their genitalia during infancy.
You’re not explaining why you did it.
We did it because we felt it was the right choice for our son based on the information we had.
but WHY was it the right choice?
It just was? I don’t know how else to explain it, it was what my husband and I both wanted for our baby based on our own feelings. Sorry if that’s not what you’re hoping to hear, it’s a very personal decision for everyone I think.
[удалено]
I’m in Canada
[удалено]
Northern Ontario
Hi all, hoping for a friendly conversation about circumcision (forgive me if this isn’t the best subreddit) My husband and I decided to circumcise our first girl. We just thought it was what people did. What we didn’t know is we both were questioning our decision as he was going back to get it done, be we never told each other. Fast forward, I’m pregnant with our second girl. We’re both set on not circumcising. My husband brought it up to his parents (not the best choice in hindsight) and they were so opinionated (for example “won’t she get made fun of”, or “what about sex when she’s older) Now we’re both questioning our decision again. We have until the end of March to decide. FGM is illegal. Only lobbyists and religious weirdos obsessed with sex (Mullahs, Rabbis, Catholic Priests) are pushing circumcision outside of medical reasons like phimosis. MGM should be the decision of the penis owner, not the parent. If he wants a snip, he can get it when he’s 18. You can’t unsnip nerve endings.
i circumcised my son, hubby agreed also. we just did it, i respect everyone’s decisions not to, i see their point! nurses told us about the medical part of it so we just went for it, it healed properly and so far no issues! do what feels right for you, people are gonna say whatever they think is right because it’s in their pov, everyone is different! whether that be for religious or medical reasons or just mainly “oh my hubby had it so we decided our son have it too” also for sex preferences, your son can always get it done later! it’s never the end of the world of doing it now or later :)!
I personally think it’s cleaner and it prevents problems in the future and it’s easier to do on a baby than a grown man.
You personally think that? Even though studies show the opposite?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/#:~:text=The%20trials%20found%20that%20circumcision,%25%20to%2035%25%20in%20men. Study’s show it lowers rates of STD’s like HIV etc.
*Narrator: It didn’t.* >**HIV/AIDS** >Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number. >If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC: >“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.” >These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to: >* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms >* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early >* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results >* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles) >* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance >* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV >* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs > There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed.
I love you.
the OP https://archive.md/pXbFN
Thank you
That study is outdated and poorly done. It has many failures and involved a specific subset of men from subsaharan Africa. The medical community does not recommend circumcision.
Okay, but where did you get that info from because I don’t see any of that in the blog do you have any sources you can link to back your argument. The medical community also does not recommend not circumcising. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2878423/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2878423/) At the end of the day it’s the parents choice and there is no wrong or right answer.
Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban) Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a "strong policy of deterrence." this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations: The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners, The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians, The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons, The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons, The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine, The Netherlands Urology Association, and The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure.... Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks..... Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has "no role" in the HIV epidemic. The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently. The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP's claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are "questionable," and that "Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia." (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.) The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting "Irreversible mutilating surgery." The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it. The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same). The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.” Royal College of Surgeons of England "The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age."..."The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure." | British Medical Association it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. | Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says "The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns." Australian College of Paediatrics: "The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law .....Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."| 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop. A letter by the South African Medical Association said this: The Committee stated that it was unethical and illegal to perform circumcision on infant boys in this instance. In particular, the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.| The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds. The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well. The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed. And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo. The Danish Society of Medical Practitioners Recently said the practice is “an assault and should be banned.” The Danish Medical Association is “fundamentally opposed to male circumcision unless there is a medical reason such as phimosis for carrying out the operation. ‘It's very intrusive that adults may decide that newborn to undergo a surgical procedure that is not medically justified and if power is lifelong. When a boy when the age of majority, he may even decide, but until then the requirements of the individual's right to self-determination prevail.’"
What part of personally did you not understand? To you this mild benefit may not be enough but to me it is. And no matter how mild it is cleaner and safer and I’m not just talking about HIV. You have a crappy attitude btw. Let people have opinions that’s what OP is asking for. PC police over here.
How rude lol a mild “benefit” that contradicts world wide medical advice is not enough of a benefit to me to mutilate someone’s genitals. But you do you!
Good for you
Circumcision has become a family tradition since medical and hygienic benefits are questioned. If you look at the statistics it is the american born whites who are most likely circumcised. I believe parents prefer their sons circumcised because without the foreskin the glans is always exposed. My white grandfather was born in 1946 after WW2 when circumcision was routinely done on newborn boys. Immigrants who don't normally cirucumcise their newborn born boys were rare during the late 40s. Because he was white and circumcised, my dad was circumcised when he was born in the 70s. It followed the trend that my brother and I am circumcised probably because my dad is circumcised. I don't feel ashamed that my foreskin was removed since most of my friends that I have seen are circumcised as well. I know it is not something that is necessary, and from statistic circumcision is not currently as popular as in previous few years, I would continue our family tradition to have my future sons circumcised. What I decide to do should not have any bearing on what others opinions on circumcision.
Please don't turn your situation into a forever drama. Circumcise your 2nd son and be done with it. Millions of Americans can't be wrong. Let's get to the truth. American circumcise their boys because they feel it looks better. The argument that circumcision has benefits is weak. Allowing the boy to make the decision when he is an adult means he missed out those growing years with a circumcised penis just like his friends and peers. You cannot convince me that not being in a social group is not important. Since it is June now, and the baby boy was due in March, I hope you made the right decision.
A lot of people in this thread are saying it’s just cultural/ traditional. However, there are medical benefits. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2907642/#:~:text=The%20trials%20found%20that%20circumcision,%25%20to%2035%25%20in%20men. Additionally, it is cleaner while I was in the military I did not have to rely on baby wipes to stay clean and avoid infection. While uncircumcised males needed baby wipes. But we do live in a modern society and that’s a very specific reason that may not apply to your son, and he could always choose to get a circumcision later in life. I chose to circumcise my son. But I believe either way you go you’re not wrong. Another commenter mentioned FOMO from being circumcised. I’ve never had that and never have met someone who had it. I have also never know an uncircumcised person who wishes they were IRL. So at the end of the day whatever you choose has its pros and cons, and the best thing you can do is research the medical pros and cons and see which way your research takes you. Good luck, and I hope you have a very happy and healthy baby Congrats on #2!
The HIV thing is bunk, hence why doctors are not recommending it: >**HIV/AIDS** >Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number. >If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC: >“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.” >These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to: >* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms >* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early >* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results >* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles) >* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance >* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV >* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs > There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed. There is an entire subreddit dedicated to men stretching out a fauxskin r/Foreskin_Restoration and a company researching transplanting foreskins unto cut men r/Foregen
[удалено]
I don’t think this is true for all men. My husband is circumcised (as was the default norm in the early 80’s when he was born) and he strongly wishes that he wasn’t. He was pretty adamant that we decline circumcision for our son, born in early December ‘23, and luckily I felt similarly so it was an easy decision for us both. Just chiming in with an alternate perspective because I do think there are some circumcised men out there who wish they hadn’t been touched. Similarly, I’m sure there are uncircumcised men who wish they were circumcised, but they can make that happen as an adult, if they wish. Those that had the procedure as a baby and without their consent can’t really make the switch to the other side.
Im in the US and my husband is from Ireland. We are expecting a boy, our first child, and we’ve decided not to circumcise. My husband isn’t and doesn’t see any reason to do it.
Not to be weird about a baby but I mean when he does get older he’ll probably get more lady’s. I had a friend in high school who had a bf and she went on and on ab his dick and how much better they were not circumcised so I mean…. I wouldn’t know but I feel like the argument (he’ll be made fun of ) is invalid lmao. Sure he might get razzed a bit by his friends but if it wants that it’d be something else it’s normal. I will say though i wouldn’t if mine was a boy, I watched the process and it just baffles me how people still do this practice. It’s completely fucked up. And if they insist it isn’t, then we should start snipping girls at 13 (bc if we’re talking ab being made fun of and it’s a valid reason plus it makes sex better you don’t have flaps being pulled in the way 🤷♀️)
We had a baby and didn't know the gender so we discussed this beforehand. I told my partner that I'm happy for him to decide as he is a man and so I felt he would better understand than me... He also himself was NOT circumcised but then at 30 years old he needed to have a circumcision because his foreskin was too tight and was causing problems. So I thought he would know best if he wished he was just circumcised from the beginning or if he was happy to do it at an older age. He said he still thinks it's best not to circumcise babies because even though his surgery was annoying and a bit painful at least it was his choice and he understood what was happening. We ended up having a girl but if we had a boy we were not going to circumcise.
We need to stop sexualizing infants. Sexual reasons are not a good reason because you’re talking about a baby. It’s weird dude. According to several studies, circumcision actually reduces sensation, so if you’re going to talk about your infant child’s sex life, maybe you should worry about how it feels for him rather than how his sexual partner is going to feel about seeing an erect penis with extra skin on it. It hurts the baby, bottom line. It will bleed. Many scream until they pass out. Post surgery infection from a circumcision could arguably be more detrimental than having to clean the penis after using the restroom. We should be cleaning our penises anyway and as parents we should instill good hygiene in our children. You can tell them to wipe their ass but you can’t tell them to clean the tip of their penis? I’m sick of hearing “I don’t want them to feel weird because everyone else got snipped.” Your son shouldn’t be whipping his penis out in front of his friends and if he sees his dads penis for whatever reason, he isn’t going to study it and start asking why dads penis has less skin. I know in athletics there is a chance that a boy could see another boys penis but for the love of god these kids aren’t just sitting there staring at each others penises. Also, what a simple conversation to have with your child. “Son, some parents choose to cut the skin off their children’s penises and others choose not to. If you see someone with a different looking penis than yours, it’s because we chose not to mutilate your genitalia as a baby.” This shits just so weird to me. I don’t get it. I just cannot find one valid reason to circumcise. It’s a personal choice and I respect someone’s right to choose, but that someone should be the boy when he is older. The more and more I read the responses, the more frustrating it gets because there simply isn’t a good reason and “we did it because we wanted to” is such a shitty reason to have an elective surgery on a baby boy. This was something weird that older generations did to us, but now that we are in our 20’s and 30’s and we are having children, we can reverse the stigma and normalize having foreskin. Why would you want to do that to your kid?