Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I already had an opinion about infant circumcision... but today, as a nursing student, I witnessed two performed. I am now even more firmly committed to not having any children of mine circumcised, but my family members don't believe me when I say that. In fact, they rather scoffed and spoke down to me when I stated my opinion today. Why do they assume that I'll just "come around" because "it looks better" and "it's better for them". I just don't believe that to be true! Why should I do something horrific, cruel and permanent to a child that has no choice just because everyone else does it!?
Are there any parents out there that chose not to circumcise?
I am not circumcised, but I can tell you that circumcision does actually have benefits. It's not just a ritualistic thing. It's more of a hygiene thing. And I know there are many medical studies that concluded that men who are not circumcised are more likely to transmit STDs.
Post by mulcherry0420 on Jan 24, 2008 20:25:18 GMT -5
I had a friends mother, who was a freshman in high school at the time, ask me the same questions (she was also a heavy drinker and would ask me things that she probably shouldnt), if she was wrong for not circumsizing her son. His father was from Mexico and part of their culture was to not circumsize a baby. They felt that a baby is perfect when its born...so they dont do anything to it, no matter what the defaults or differences. I think it bothered her son so much bc his brothers had a different father and they were..i could be wrong My mother chose to..I dont really know the difference to being circumsized and not, other than the obvious...
But its really about your own choice. Sometimes when its 12 degrees outside i wish i had a little mini hood to hide in
There are other studies that say uncircumcised men are less like to get an STD. And as far as hygiene is concerned, I don't think a little smegma is enough of a reason to hack off part of a little baby's penis. My nursing book as a good paragraph of possible complications of circumcision and only one sentence stating that most men have no problem with the hygiene required of being uncircumcised. The nurse that we followed in the nursery said there was no medical reason to have it done.
A friend of mine's little boy had a botched circumcision and required surgery when he was older to fix it. How traumatic would that be? Seeing it performed, I can see how a mistake could easily be made. And there's no telling how the thing will look when the boy grows up. The doctor that did it made a joke about using the foreskins for fishing lures. Ewwwwwwwwww. And I just can't imagine a little boy growing up angry because his penis is whole and all his friends' are chopped.
I don't believe in cropping a dogs ears, and I don't believe in cropping a baby's penis.
Post by mulcherry0420 on Jan 24, 2008 20:34:06 GMT -5
Hilariously, I also know of a male that had a "botched" cut. He has showed it to me on numerous occasions saying "Think I can sew those bastards with the shakey hands??!!"
I believe it's up to the parents and what they believe in but I have to respectful disagree with you when you say that a uncircumcised penis is less likely that transfer std's. It's the other way around there have been countless studies to prove uncircumcised men are more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and are less likely to have visible warts.
Not only do the have a higher risk of std's but also a higher risk of penile cancer also many men report that it is extremely painful to have this procedure done later in life.
The risk of penile cancer is extremely low in either case. That's like saying men shouldn't wear deodorant because it causes breast cancer. Breast cancer in men is rare whether you wear deodorant or not... it's not a reason to walk around stinky all the time. And STD prevention is more strongly related to condom use and other safe sex practices than it is to a foreskin.
Of course it's extremely painful to have it done later in life, It's extremely painful for a baby too, but the chance of them having to have it done is very small. Later in life, they can make the decision as an informed adult, rather than have it inflicted upon them as helpless infants.
I'm not going to comment on the practice itself, but it has been suggested that a newborn baby's memory is VERY short.. of course, there really are no ways to prove this.
That being said, I don't remember being born. When I was 5, I didn't remember being born. I barely remember anything from before I was 10. If something extremely painful that would be better for me in the long run needs to be done, I would rather it done when I won't remember it.
It hasn't been proven that deodorant has any relationship with breast cancer so that analogy doesn't make sense at all. Studies have shown that an uncircumcised penis do have an increased chance of having penile cancer. Whether that correlation is between the two is small or not it has been proven.
And Wooz is correct in saying that babies have no recollection in having the circumcision but I can guarantee a grown man will remember every second of the procedure and recovery.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Jan 24, 2008 21:27:56 GMT -5
iheartroo said:
I believe it's up to the parents and what they believe in but I have to respectful disagree with you when you say that a uncircumcised penis is less likely that transfer std's. It's the other way around there have been countless studies to prove uncircumcised men are more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and are less likely to have visible warts.
Not only do the have a higher risk of std's but also a higher risk of penile cancer also many men report that it is extremely painful to have this procedure done later in life.
??? I think your misread, "And I know there are many medical studies that concluded that men who are not circumcised are more likely to transmit STDs. "
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Jan 24, 2008 21:32:25 GMT -5
"All that said it is a personal choice." But whose choice should it be? In some parts of the world girls are circumcised. That is generally considered mutilation in this country.
I'm just going to say, having foreskin, it has benefits and drawbacks. But it's benefits aren't quite as truly beneficial as its drawbacks. Let's just say, if you don't got it, it's hard to talk about it with someone who doesn't. Conversations, even with guys, about foreskins can often be some of the most hilarious as far as misconceptions go.
"All that said it is a personal choice." But whose choice should it be? In some parts of the world girls are circumcised. That is generally considered mutilation in this country.
Not even comparable.
Female circumcision is done specifically to keep women from enjoying sex. Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons.
In this country it's the parents choice. And, in the case of girl circumcision's I think we view it as mutilation not because it's done but because of how and why it's done. In other parts of the world girls are circumcised because men want to take away the feeling of pleasure when woman have sex. And when it's done it's usually in some chop shop done by a quack "doctor". I believe it's totally different.
"All that said it is a personal choice." But whose choice should it be? In some parts of the world girls are circumcised. That is generally considered mutilation in this country.
Not even comparable.
Female circumcision is done specifically to keep women from enjoying sex. Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons.
Ah, but I would like to argue that it IS comparable. Many of those women WANT to be circumcised and believe that they would be less of a woman if they didn't weren't. To them, it is directly related to femininity and finding a husband. Mothers want their daughters to look like them, etc. They are undereducated about it's drawbacks and it's risks and willingly chose to be circumcised.
It's personal choice all the way... but parents should be educated about their options and know exactly what their infant son is going to go through. And I don't know that it should even be the parents choice, really... Regardless of whether they remember the pain or not, doesn't make it right. I'm sure that extreme pain to the genitals, painful urination and a raw and sore penis has some sort of psychological effect. We are talking about the "Trust Vs. Mistrust" stage. What sort of violation of trust is it to cut off part of the genitals.
I just don't buy the hygiene issue. My dog has a foreskin, I never clean it and his penis is just fine. It just doesn't make sense to me that a piece of flesh given by mother nature would be problematic. Evolutionarily, it just doesn't make sense. I would like to argue that the hygiene idea is a cultural belief. They don't practice circumcision on a regular basis in other countries like they do in the US.
I had a son one year ago and he was circumcised at 3 weeks old because they couldn't do it at the hospital when he was born. Before he had it done I was nervous as was my husband that his penis would be deformed, he would be in pain, he would remember it and hate us for life. The procedure was a 15 minute out-patient procedure, he cried when it happen of course but I was right there to comfort him and as soon as I picked him up he stopped crying. It never seemed to bother him after that, and we have had no real issues with it since.
According to Erikson, infants learn to trust when they are cared for in a "consistent and warm manner". If the infant is not cared for and not fed in such a manner, the infant is more likely to develop a sense of mistrust. As for as trust vs mistrust infants are brought into our world with a clean slate. No worries, no cares, and no fears. Eventually, through experiences in this new environment, infants begin to express some of these emotions and they look to their caregivers for guidance. If you are their to comfort them and let them no they are loved and taken care of than there should be no worries.
Female circumcision is done specifically to keep women from enjoying sex. Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons.
Ah, but I would like to argue that it IS comparable. Many of those women WANT to be circumcised and believe that they would be less of a woman if they didn't weren't. To them, it is directly related to femininity and finding a husband. Mothers want their daughters to look like them, etc. They are undereducated about it's drawbacks and it's risks and willingly chose to be circumcised.
It's personal choice all the way... but parents should be educated about their options and know exactly what their infant son is going to go through. And I don't know that it should even be the parents choice, really... Regardless of whether they remember the pain or not, doesn't make it right. I'm sure that extreme pain to the genitals, painful urination and a raw and sore penis has some sort of psychological effect. We are talking about the "Trust Vs. Mistrust" stage. What sort of violation of trust is it to cut off part of the genitals.
I just don't buy the hygiene issue. My dog has a foreskin, I never clean it and his penis is just fine. It just doesn't make sense to me that a piece of flesh given by mother nature would be problematic. Evolutionarily, it just doesn't make sense. I would like to argue that the hygiene idea is a cultural belief. They don't practice circumcision on a regular basis in other countries like they do in the US.
I just wanted to pop in and say that the two are not physically comparable whatsoever. You are trying to compare cutting off foreskin to cutting off the clitoris. Many people don't know what female circumcision is, so i just wanted to point that out.
Also, many animals need your help to clean. For example, you should clean out your horses foreskin every 3-4 months... for health reasons! It can be very uncomfortable and cause serious pain.
Female circumcision takes many forms though. It just depends, sometimes it's just the removal of the labia (minora or majora), other times it involves removal of the clitoris and even mostly sewing shut the vaginal opening.
In some of it's less barbaric forms, it is perfectly comparable to removal of the foreskin, especially since many believe that removal of the foreskin causes a drastic reduction in sensation.
It seems I have started a debate, but I still haven't found what I was hoping to find. There's so many people on this board, there has to be some parent out there that has chosen not to circumcise...
I'm not going to comment on the practice itself, but it has been suggested that a newborn baby's memory is VERY short.. of course, there really are no ways to prove this.
That being said, I don't remember being born. When I was 5, I didn't remember being born. I barely remember anything from before I was 10. If something extremely painful that would be better for me in the long run needs to be done, I would rather it done when I won't remember it.
it doesn't matter one way or another to me, and obviously i wouldn't know the benefits or disadvantages. but i say, if it's going to be done, you're better off doing it to an infant. sure, it's painful, but the baby won't remember it.
regarding dogs: i also don't agree with ear cropping for any reason. however, cropping tails has been done for safety reasons in hunting dogs, etc. when you think about it, they're chopping off the end of the poor dog's spine. but again, the puppy is never going to remember it.
it's not quite the same thing, but think about women having babies. i've never had one and don't plan on it, but every woman i've ever known that's had a baby said it was the worst pain they've ever endured. but people keep having babies.
I don't think the point is whether the baby (or dog) remembers pain, but that pain is purposely being inflicted on a being that does not have a choice. That is generally not the case with birthing.
Post by kaleidoscope kristen on Jan 25, 2008 19:50:59 GMT -5
I saw a story on MSNBC of a couple in Canada who just had twin boys, and was having them circumcised. For some reason unbeknownst to me, they used a laser for the circumsicions. This was in the 50's also
Well, one of the circumcisions was a success, and the other actually had a fault and incenerated the penis of the newborn. So, the parents got a settlement from the hospital, and the only thing they could do was raise the son as a DAUGHTER.
Crazy. Eventually the family secret was revealed, and the person is now living as a man.. I tried to find the story on the web, but didn't have much luck.
ANYWAYS... I am all pro choice... just as long as lasers are not involved.
I saw a story on MSNBC of a couple in Canada who just had twin boys, and was having them circumcised. For some reason unbeknownst to me, they used a laser for the circumsicions. This was in the 50's also
Well, one of the circumcisions was a success, and the other actually had a fault and incenerated the penis of the newborn. So, the parents got a settlement from the hospital, and the only thing they could do was raise the son as a DAUGHTER.
Crazy. Eventually the family secret was revealed, and the person is now living as a man.. I tried to find the story on the web, but didn't have much luck.
ANYWAYS... I am all pro choice... just as long as lasers are not involved.
I read the auto biography in a gender studies class. I cannot remember the name of it. But the person reaised as a girl was confused around puberity. The docter who did it force the parents into the decision of castration and raising him as a girl.
&
