Divorced parents clash over 12-year-old son's circumcision

You have nothing to compare it to then. From what I've read, most men that get circumcised as adults do experience decreased sensitivity and even difficulties getting an erection after a certain point.

It makes sense if you think about it. The foreskin covers the glans, protecting it from any rubbing that underwear or boxers might cause. Once the foreskin is removed, the glans is exposed to the air and whatever rubbing underwear might cause. The glans dries out a little, and even the softest cotton or silk boxers still rubs against the glans almost 24/7. The nerves get accustomed to the stimulation provided by the rubbing, and as a result they seem to become more numb.

Try rubbing your penis for 20 years straight, then see if you experience and decreased sensitivity.

Well, loss might not be the right word in this case.

But men circumcised as babies seem to have less sensitivity in their penis than men who weren't.

"Sorrells et al. (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity.""

But again, if you were both circumcised as babies, you have nothing to compare it to.

I'm glad I'm cut. I've had zero issues with infections in my life. Zero.
I really don't care about sensativities debate. It is what it is, and I assure you it's plenty sensetive.

Out of all of the women I've been out with that this discussion has come up, the preffrence is cut, and a coulpe of them came to that conclusion from fighting infections given by uncut boyfriends.

Nope, no turtleneck for me, even if I could choose today. After 47 years, the track record for health is flawless.

I'm uncut, and I've had zero issues with infection too. But that's because my doctor and father told me to clean my penis every time I bathed.

Like someone else in this thread said, not all women have experienced uncut penises (just as not all women have experienced cut penises). Some studies suggest that uncircumcised penises help bring women to orgasm because the foreskin provides extra stimulation along the vaginal wall.

There's a vaccine now that protects women from HPV. Perhaps you recall the brouhaha over it? As far as never having had an infection because you're cut--my husband is uncut and he's only had one in his 40 years. He bathes. Problem solved. Men the world over don't have high rates of AIDS, penile cancer, UTIs, whatever. The men of the UK and Europe aren't suffering en masse. Nature created a foreskin to protect the glans. It's useful. How did men get along for centuries without it until the masturbation hysteria hit?

Look, if you're young and you plan on having dozens of partners and not wearing a condom, I can understand to a certain extent the reasoning for cutting. If you plan on cheating on your girlfriend, maybe (that quote above sure sounds dubious). You still might be the 3 out of 10 that get AIDS, though, if the quoted study is to be believed. I wouldn't want it if I were a male, not without that 100 percent guarantee. However, it's not my decision. From the perspective of someone in a mongamous relationship like myself, I don't see the need, and AIDS might be cured in another generation if those trials with the Danish sex workers yield positive results. HPV can be prevented right now. HIV may be next. It seems a shame that so many men would do it to themselves because it's completely unnecessary.

Whether you're for it or against it, it still doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be forced on an unwilling 12 year old because of daddy's new religious beliefs. I can't wrap my mind around dragging him kicking and screaming and strapping him down. I can't believe that the courts would be so short sighted as to set that precedent. Every nut job parent from every fringe religion will be dragging their child into court to force procedures on them. The ignorance of the female advocate calling it no different than cosmetic surgery is terrifying. That poor little boy. The court will allow parents to opt out of the HPV vaccine for girls, and that's one hundred percent effective and involves no cutting.

Respect the child enough to let him make the decision when he's an adult. He's a human being for God's sake. It shouldn't be the parents' business.

Some studies and my entire marital experience. It does bring me to orgasm during intercourse. Once again, I've never had an infection from him. That bathing thing works miracles. If an uncut man is giving his partner infections, she needs to dump him because he's a dirty skank who's not washing regularly.

I've known circumcised men and uncircumcised men, frankly I couldn't care less which they are. It's made no difference to me at all.

Personally I agree that this should be left to the individual to decide. Especially when you're talking about a 12 year old. How traumatic would it be for the little fella if he doesn't want it.

For some women it doesn't seem to make a difference. It does to me, it doesn't to my friend who's had uncut boyfriends before getting married to a circ'd man. She likes them both. It's all cool and the gang. But when you're right, you're right. It should be an individual decision. The penis doesn't define the man, but it should be respected as his decision and part of his personal sexuality. A 12 year old's genitals shouldn't be altered against his will unless he has a painful condition like phimosis and he's hurting.

I'm happy for everyone.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for this cut willie.

Well, you're just sexually gifted.

I didn't get the impression that the dad was making the kid. In fact it said how

So if he understands, and I'm sure his mother has made sure he knows about the pain and maybe even the possible loss of sensation, then it is his choice.

Personally I think it should be left till he is 18, and, hopefully by then, understands what he may be giving up. I don't think he would at 12.

Not sure what we will do if we ever have a boy.

Flow what is your opinion?

Personally I don't think it's about religious beliefs or safety at all, but both are using the child to hurt each other.

But the mother said that her son told her that he felt kinda pressured to do it.

The judge should just ask the kid whether he wants it or not, but it seems like that doesn't matter since he's apparently not old enough to decide if he wants to to be mutilated or not.

I still say it's an extremely dangerous precedent to be set, be it a forced circumcision, forced nose job, forced breast augmentation, or whatever. If it isn't medically necessary, no one should be forced.

It should be the kids choice.

He should be asked. I never said different.

One thing to consider when comparing infection rates is that it's very important to have the actual statistics. Relative numbers don't tell you much.

For example, consider the statistic regarding HIV infection. The claim is that, across a population base, the HIV infection rate among circumcised men was decreased by 70%.

If the original infection rate, Iuc = 50%, then Ic = 15%. Also, the odds of non-infection are NIuc = 50% and NIc = 85%. Your odds of coming through unscathed have increased by a factor of 1.7. That's quite impressive.

However, if Iuc = 0.1%, then Ic = 0.03%. NIuc = 99.9% and NIc = 99.97%. Your odds of coming through unscathed have increased by a factor of just 1.0007. That's too small to really consider significant to an individual.


You've got to be careful with numbers.

That's a very good point, Spider. Very wise. I can understand why doctors in countries with dire numbers of AIDS infected people would be willing to recommend circumcision. They've got to do something in Africa, because too many seem unwilling to change their behavior and communities have been decimated with too many orphans. Hell, it's the wives of the men who will be protected more than the men since promiscuity is so rampant and many men still won't use condoms. Heterosexual women have always been at higher risk than hetero men simply because of the nature of intercourse. When your body receives the penis, it's more likely to get the tiny abrasions and tears that allows the virus to enter the bloodstream. How likely are uncut heterosexual men who don't sleep around to get the virus in the first place from their female partners? Not extremely likely.

However, in a more westernized country with much lower rates of infection, is recommending it worthwhile? Probably not. However, it's a young man's choice. What worries me is the young man who sleeps around who's going to think that this is a cure all preventitive for HIV infection. Condom use is still very advisable. For someone in a monogamous relationship, their perspective is going to be different of course.

The argument about why AIDS is less prevalent in certain areas of Africa being due to high circumcision rates isn't completely proved, and as Spider points out, isn't even an important influence considering the actual transmission rates are much lower than most people assume (supposed about 1 in 500 I think).

And it's not as if those AIDS has been wiped out in those areas of Africa where most men are cut

I was cut as an infant so for the longest time I never really realized I was missing something.

It was until some kids at school started discussing it that it dawned on me.

I agree with some of the other posters, including Mrs. Flow.

The penis is the kid's own damn business.

Oh thank god, thank god...I thought he was gonna regale us of tales of the dick-feel of both like the women did.

Dodged a bullet to the psyche there.

-_- I have taste. And virginity.

Been There, Done That

So now I've been mutilated? Getthefuckouttaherewiththatshit.

It's obvious that the Brits don't have much to begin with, and any snipping is a significant loss. We Americans can afford to lose a little off the tip, but we're still the envy of the world.

What else do you call it? A piece of tissue with a job to do is removed for no surgical or medical necessity.

circumcising a child is child abuse, imnsho. Throw them all in jail. Yes, all of them.


Well okay, seeing that you'd have to build thousands upon thousands of new cells, fining them would be good too.

If I were the judge, I'd find a way to delay the procedure until the child was f sufficient legal age to decide on his own. It's not an emergency, so as long as both parents are as concerned about his wishes and freedom from coercion as they claim to be, everyone should be happy with such a decision.

It's mine, and weather or not that side of the pond or anyone on this board recognizes it as a medical procedure or not is irrelivent to me. I'm pleased with it. That is the reason I was done, for medical reasons. I feel sure infections and such are much more previlent in uncut men and if that doesn't fall under your scope of common sense there than I have no idea what to say.

Removing one's foreskin for fear of infection is like removing one's eyeballs for fear of pinkeye or one's lips for fear of a cold sore. It's unnecessary as long as you have decent hygiene and live in a first world country.