So what's your opinion on circumcision? If you were having a baby boy, would you get him snipped? Why or why not?

Can't think of a single reason why a baby boy should be circumcised at birth. I'm uncut because my parents didn't think it was necessary and neither do I. If he decides later that he wants to get cut (but most uncut guys don't) then ok but at least let him make that decision for himself.

Agreed. I'm against infant circumcision. There's no need for it. If later on the kid has an issue that REQUIRES him to be circumcised, then whatever....but wait for that (unlikely) scenario to happen.

Chris wrote:

So what's your opinion on circumcision? If you were having a baby boy, would you get him snipped? Why or why not?

I'd ask the doctor to get his opinion of if it would be necessary. If he said no, then I wouldn't insist on it.

Against - Uncut has sort of come out of the closet in the past 10 years and I see no reason to mutilate a baby boy when in fact, the foreskin is there for a reason. If later on in life he wants to be circumcised at least he has a choice.

Not a fan of "anteater dicks," so my vote is FOR.

I probably would. Some uncircumcised men, I've seen 'em...

they can be rather scary down there.

I don't really hve a cut-uncut preference but some people do. I don't think I would! I'd let him have his foreskin and then later if he wanted to get cut, he could~!

I wouldn't if only for the fact that this cosmetic procedure costs. After a baby is born you're already walking out of the hospital financially tapped. If it's not necessary, then why even bother?

I think I would. I'm generally for circumcision. say circumcised guys are better protected against diseases, plus our Johnson's tend to be easier to keep clean. A lot of bacteria hides out & grows in-between the crack & crevices of foreskin.

JB wrote:

I think I would. I'm generally for circumcision. say circumcised guys are better protected against diseases, plus our Johnson's tend to be easier to keep clean. A lot of bacteria hides out & grows in-between the crack & crevices of foreskin.

Then why not remove the earlobe too? Think of the 5 seconds of extra time saved without having to clean behind it. Far as circumcised men being more protected against diseases/STD's go, that's in dispute. But it wouldn't matter much anyway if everyone (cut and uncut) practiced safer sex.

I don't really see it as a big deal one way or another but if it isn't essential then I suppose there's no point in having it down.

I'm circumcised and have no issues with it but I don't think I'd have my son circumcised. I don't think it matters so why do it?

I understand the moral argument against it... but really, to me uncut cocks look like pigs in a blanket... would I want my sons to look like that? I don't know. I disagree though about circumcision being mutilation... it's a cosmetic alteration. Maybe being raised in the Jewish faith clouded my judgement there but to me its no different than getting an ear pierced.

At the end of the day all penises do the same thing (piss, get erections, ejaculate.) So arguing over that extra centimeter of skin like it's as sacred as a hand seems a bit futile to me.

SecHandNews wrote:

I'd ask the doctor to get his opinion of if it would be necessary. If he said no, then I wouldn't insist on it.

Basically.

If the doctor recommended it, I'd consider it. If not, then I wouldn't.

I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other.

I tend to be against infant circumcision for many, MANY reasons! I used to be neutral about it (even though I'm not circumcised myself), but after doing some research on it for a psychology class, I've learned a lot more about it. I have no problem with circumcision if it's the guys own choice to be circumcised, but I think forcing it on a infant who's incapable of granting consent is wrong.

1. It's not medically necessary and most pediatricians (The American Academy of Pediatrics; The Canadian Paediatric Society; Royal Australasian College of Physicians; The British Medical Association; etc) don't recommend it. Even Dr. Spock, the baby guru was against it.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SGWC9yRUG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuu07U2FokQ

2. Its a very painful surgery for them. (I've actually seen several done before). Sometimes they use anesthesia, but a lot of times they don't. Even when they use anesthesia, it's still hurts them (as does the shot in the groin). The recovery also takes weeks. I see no reason to put a newborn through all of that when there is no real medical benefit to it.
http://fr.video.yahoo.com/watch/352478/2210721

3. Even though they don't remember it later in life, studies have shown that it does alter their perception of pain in the first few years of life. Babies actually feel pain more intensely than adults (which we just learned in the last decade). Recent studies published in leading medical journals have reported that circumcision has long-lasting detrimental effects on the developing brain, adversely altering the brain's perception centers. Circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than girls or intact boys. Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott suggests that circumcision can cause deeper and more disturbing levels of neurological damage, as well..
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1F21E.htm
http://www.euthanasia.com/chilpain.html
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

4. Some babies actually die from it every year in the United States. Even though it's a small percentage, why take the chance for a cosmetic procedure?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZko6U8BmfQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YSBS9y9YvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyiBdP4GfO8&feature=PlayList&p=BC354EC34E141BD3&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=6

5. Most doctors (even the ones that routinely peform the surgery say that it's not medically necessary and it's painful but they only do it at the parents requests. It's also a bit of a medical scam as circumcision is only common in the US (with the exception of Jews and Muslims) and a very profitable thing for doctors. I find that to be pretty sad, especially when parents don't even seek the doctors advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CC9Y-Us210&feature=PlayList&p=6D7B043F7FF00CF0&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=13
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1017669/3828432
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4unKTMpBGA&feature=PlayList&p=6D7B043F7FF00CF0&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=8

6. I believe that there are many benefits to having a foreskin (sexually) and I wouldn't want to rob my own son of that. Circumcised penises are less sensitive than a penis with a foreskin. Having foreskin also makes masturbation much easier (one of the reasons circumcision was popularized in the 1800's was to "cure" masturbation in boys).
http://www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html
http://www.aboutcirc.com/mast.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
http://www.healthystrokes.com/circumcision.html
http://www.top10wayscircumcisedsexharmswomen.com/

7. One of the big arguments FOR circumcised is that it's easier to keep clean when it's circumcised and that it cuts down on "infections". But really, these are silly arguments if anyone ever takes time to do any research or apply common sense. First of all, as long as the guy takes a shower everyday and washes his genitals (pulling back the foreskin takes less than a second), he is just as "hygienic" as a circumcised male. And as long as the guy practices safe sex, he's no more likely to contract STD's. Circumcision reduces the chance of an infant boy from getting a UTI in the first few years of life, but only 1 in 100 boys will get one. Girls get them at a much higher rate, but nobody would suggest circumcision to prevent that in girls! Furthermore, infant boys are just as likely to get an infection by being circumcised (causing an open wound), which is why the AAP says "the potential benefits do not outweigh the risks". It's actually easier to care for an intact newborn boy than a circumcised one.
http://www.intactamerica.org/resources/careforintact
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1gJ7C1tBXA
http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html

8. Also regarding aesthetics, when the foreskin is pulled back, they all pretty much look the same don't they? I mean sometimes I've shown mine to people who've never seen an uncircumcised one before and I intentionally hold the foreskin back before pulling it out. To them, they hardly notice the difference until I put it forwards again. It's kind of funny that people make such a big deal over how "different" they look. It only looks different when it's flaccid and not in use.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hr8iaA4NHXQ/SbbaE1Uu35I/AAAAAAAAFRE/CC5wMWQ-JYk/s400/penis%2Buncircumcised.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Foreskin_Retraction_Series.JPG
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erection_Homme.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erection_Development.jpg

9. I don't think parents should have the right to make medical decisions that are purely out of aesthetics. It's is after all HIS penis and HE has to live with it. I think that he should have the right to decide how his body part should be. Why not just let the boy make the decision for himself when he is older. I suspect (based partly on personal experience) that most boys if given the choice, would not want to be circumcised. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
http://www.jackinworld.com/interact/question-the-week/question-the-week-classic/your-genitals/would-you-rather-be-circumcised-o
http://jackinworld.com/interact/question-the-week/question-the-week-classic/opinion/whats-your-personal-theory-about-the-di
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx89xECfHG4&feature=related

I'm neither. I've been with a guy who was uncircumcised and it really doesn't "look" that much different than a circumcised penis. Definitely doesn't work any different. I'd prob. do it because it would be easier to do it when he's a baby than when he gets older....but if I decide at the last moment not to do it, it's not that big of a deal.

I'm cut. Fine with me but I probably wouldn't have my son circumcised. What's the point?

I'm circumcised and have no issue with it. Don't think it really it matters all that much one way or another. I see circumcision as more of a "unnecessary, but whatever..." than I do as some kind of grievous injustice that anti-circumcision zealots try to perpetuate. That little bit of extra foreskin around the dickhead is neither sacred or a burden. Leave it alone or snip it. Either way a dick is a dick.

Marc wrote:

I'm circumcised and have no issue with it. Don't think it really it matters all that much one way or another. I see circumcision as more of a "unnecessary, but whatever..." than I do as some kind of grievous injustice that anti-circumcision zealots try to perpetuate. That little bit of extra foreskin around the dickhead is neither sacred or a burden. Leave it alone or snip it. Either way a dick is a dick.

If it's unnecessary, then why do it? Nobody is saying that the foreskin is "sacred", but the fact is it does serve a purpose. Why would anybody remove part of someone else's body without their consent if it's unnecessary? How is that NOT anything but an injustice? That's just a completely idiotic thing to do. I hear arguments like yours all the time but they never make any sense. "It's not necessary, therefore it doesn't matter one way or the other". That's backwards logic! Something should only be done BECAUSE it's necessary or beneficial in some way! The fact that it's not necessary is reason enough for not doing it (especially if their are risks and drawbacks involved)!

I'm for it. Uncut dicks look like snausages. LOL I'm good on having my son look like that. When I was HS during Sex Ed, they showed a picture of a uncircumcised penis in the text book and the whole class groaned. Then later I showed the picture to my girl and asked her how she would like to be fucked by that bad boy and her answer was "Nah I'm straight..."

I'm 100% against the circumcision of infant boys. There's no need for it at all. If cosmetic is all it is, then let him alone so that when he's old enough HE can decide how he wants his penis to look. If he wants it at all, which he probably won't. It's rare to come across a uncircumcised man who is upset because he's still in tact. On the flipside though the same can't always be said!

Sorry to say it but anyone who is for it is ignorant! I'm not cut and I couldn't imagine what jerking off would be like without my foreskin. I'm pretty sure the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis as well. But that also makes me biased so I did some research on this before doing a paper about circumcision for my psychology class. The things I learned about circumcision made me sick and totally against it. I actually watched a couple of videos of circumcisions and I regret it. I think it's a violation of human rights to forcibly strap an infant down and cut off his foreskin without his permission and for no medical reason. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Anyone who's ever watched a video of a circumcision before knows how horrible it would be to put their child through that.
Plus, some of the reasons people use to justify it is so ridiculous. It's "cleaner"? First of all, if you take a shower everyday and wash your junk hygiene isn't really an issue. You brush your teeth everyday, why can't you wash your dick? It takes about 5 seconds! I'm sure your fingers would be "cleaner" if you had your fingernails ripped out at birth too, but is it a good idea? Probably not. And it doesn't make you susseptible to "infections" either. I've never had an infection before! On the other hand my cousin (who is circumcised) has had a urinary tract infection before, and so have two females that I know. Circumcision is pretty dumb! The only reason people do it is for looks, and the only reason people think it looks better is because everyone keeps doing it. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Leave little boy private parts alone! By the way, it's only in the US that people are still doing this. I lived in England for 3 years and realized that nobody over there circumcises their boys (so for the first time I was actually in the majority). Their children also seemed to be perfectly healthy, so why are we still doing it in the US? It makes no sense!