“The Water Cooler”: Let’s talk about male circumcision

October 3, 2011 12:00 pm · 81 comments

The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it!

The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon!

Today’s question:

Governor Brown signed a bill over the weekend which will make it illegal for any local government in California to ban male circumcision.

What’s your opinion on male circumcision? Do you think it’s cruel, or do you think it’s necessary?

Talk about it….

1 the Shi ite October 3, 2011 at 12:08 PM

I worked with someone that got circumcised at 29 for religious reasons. He’s now 43 and He will tell you there’s no difference to Him when knocking boots.
I don’t think we should make laws banning the practice.

I think you should look into Female Circumcision, I think we need to bring “Democracy” to those Backwards 15th century countries that are doing such a horrible thing. I don’t want hear the “it’s their religious or cultural way” excuse. It’s barbaric, look it up.

2 Muddhen October 3, 2011 at 12:09 PM

This is a decision for parents to make, the government has to stay out of legislating personal choice.

There is no one answer that is good for everyone.

Government (city, county, state, fed) KEEP OUT!

3 J October 3, 2011 at 12:09 PM

It’s a personal choice, or a parent’s choice as babies can’t really make the call. The idea of ANY government could ban it is ridiculous. It’s not their place.
To that I say: Ban THIS -> *points to circumcised member*

4 Fred O. October 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Echoing others’ comments – it ought to be the parents’ choice.

Gov’t at ALL levels needs to stay out of anything relating to personal choice/responsibility.

5 John October 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Even when government action is to ban government action, people get upset about government acting… Ugh.

6 ChampagneKitty October 3, 2011 at 12:16 PM

is blushing….

7 Max Peck October 3, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Thanks for the tip! (groan)

Just like the gub’ment to assume that is theirs to control too.

They have no business, period. Hands off!

8 Bob Loblaw October 3, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Why is female circumcision deemed barbaric and backwards and male circumcision is deemed perfectly acceptable and a parental right?

And please don’t roll out the bogus medical benefits bullpuckey. If a foreshin was a health risk, I think a million years of evolution woulf have gotten rid of it by now. Just another example of arrogant people thinking they know better than nature.

9 Barbara October 3, 2011 at 12:29 PM

This MGMBill.org group that initiated the bill sounds about as useless as Art Mijares, the guy who wants to change the name of Mt. Diablo. Everything should be based upon their religious beliefs — they think.

Bad advertising …

10 keep the whole penis October 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I have 2 boys and they are intact. how could i hand my perfect newborn over to some dr. and ask him to cut part of his penis off? bob loblaw #8, you said it perfect.

11 the Shi ite October 3, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Never said it was perfectly acceptable, did I?

Have you researched female circumcision or are you just comparing it to male circumcision which is usually done to a baby.

12 Anon777 October 3, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Parent decision! Government should have NO say whatsoever. I do not think it’s cruel when done on newborns, better then than later!

13 CJ October 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Bob Loblaw brings up a good point. If one is to be considered barbaric then the other should be as well.
My opinion is that it is a personal choice that should be left up to the individuals, and since parents have to make legal choices for their children until they are adults, it is up to te parents.
Bob, my understanding (admittedly limited) is that male circumcision originated with religious purposes geared toward cleanliness. Female circumcision is practiced by cultures for the sole purpose of limiting a female’s sexual pleasure. One reasoning seems dubious at best, the other does sound barbaric to me. Just my opinion.

14 anon October 3, 2011 at 12:53 PM

It was too late for me to have any say in the matter. It was done to me 50 years ago!! I had no voice at that time, only googles, giggles, smiles, and diapers.

Keep the government out of people’s personal lives.

15 Anon October 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM

@ Bob Loblaw

Have you even read the ways in which many countries handle female circumcision? Yes, there are doctors that do it properly with anesthesia and clean medical facilities, but the majority of women and girls in poor countries are subjected to this without anesthesia, without a proper doctor, without proper instruments, and by being held down against their will in a back alley or in the common room of a house. I’d like for you to think about your wife, daughter or mother being subjected to that kind of treatment and then tell me there’s no big deal.

16 1BAR October 3, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Aw yes! At last a subject I can really sink my teeth into. In a nutshell, there is no scientific reason to cut 153 nerve endings off of a boy’s penis! 1) A girls vaginal tract has roughly a thousand times more bacteria. 2) If you can teach a boy to clean his behind, well… Now as for religious beliefs, I’ve seen God’s job, don’t want it!!!

17 Renee October 3, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The government needs to stay out of parenting! They can’t even handle their own business that we elect them to do for gosh sakes! I think it’s an individual choice…..just look where we’re at now with some of their ridiculous laws, pfft.

18 anon October 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Bob Loblaw, very good point!

I don’t think it should be banned……its up to parents but why you would choose to do it is beyond me.

I believe the last statistics showed it was almost 50/50 with those who had and those who hadn’t done it to their babies recently, maybe people are realizing that there is no medical need to do it, just keep it clean and it will be fine!

19 Anon October 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Oh and while I’m at it, male circumcision only requires removal of the foreskin. With many female circumcisions, ALL of the external tissues/parts are removed which is vastly different. It’d be akin to removing your entire penis (and in case you didn’t know, in embryonic development, the same protuberance that make up the penis in a male, also makes up the same ones of the clitoris in women).

Mr. Mayor, if you feel okay posting this, link leave it in otherwise you can edit it out if you’d like.


20 michael October 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Its genital mutilation. Let the person decide as an adult.

I don’t think we should pass laws though. The parents can carve up their kids if they want.

21 Reality says... October 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM

I find interesting that most of these comments say it’s a “personal choice” yet the baby who is undergoing this procedure has no choice!

Circumcision should be left up to the individual to decide…not the government, or the parents.

22 anon October 3, 2011 at 1:17 PM

100% against male circumcision. I am happy to see so much anti-circ discussion here. I could not either get over the idea that somehow he was made wrong and needed to have an important part of himself removed. I’ll leave it to him. If as an adult he needs it, he can do it. I didn’t ever want to do something to my newborn that was irreversible. My son is a teen now and no issues. And before anyone says anything about infection, my daughter had recurring bladder infections, should she have been circumcised? NO. You learn the care and keeping of an intact penis and you move on with life! In fact, educate yourself as many “old time” docs are not taught anything (in the US) about the intact penis except to know how to circumcise them. Find a doctor that supports your choice and understands the care.

23 Bad idea October 3, 2011 at 1:36 PM

I think it’s a horrible practice to mutilate an infant’s body like that. In a perfect world, no one would do it. But it’s a strongly ingrained tradition in parts of our society and in some religious beliefs. It doesn’t harm society as a whole, so it’s better if the government stays out of it and lets families make up their own minds. I feel the same way about abortion. I may not like it, but the government should stay out of it and let people make up their own minds.

24 Judge Roy Bean October 3, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Jerry has this one right. It’s a family & personal choice.

25 J.T.A. October 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Interesting that a lot of the folks that want to stop circumcision are completely fine with abortion. Personally, I think circumcision should be the least of people’s worries…

26 JW October 3, 2011 at 2:05 PM

It was one of those things that i did not think about until my sons were born. My wife had an emergency C-section and the doctors basically gave me a buch of paper and asked me about whether I wanted to circumcise my kids or not. I was in the middle of a terrifying situation and they gave me a quick rundown of the benefits. One of my sons did not need one because he had a hypospadius (Natural circumcision). The other I just said to do it. I just wanted them to save my wife. Now in retrospect, I do not know why I did it or what the benefits were.

27 Anon2you October 3, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Can I have a smoke afterwards?

Seriously, this is a complete waste governments time to even be discussing wether or not to be involved it this sensitive area (ok my one and only pun). to circumcise or not is truely a non-issue and should be left up to the parents to decide. There are SO many other issues to deal with!

28 For those who believe.... October 3, 2011 at 2:12 PM

No one has really addressed the religious concerns of this. We are a free religious society and some of our beliefs and traditions demand circumcision.

So if you have no religious beliefs, don’t do it to your children. But don’t demean or outlaw others for their religious beliefs and traditions.

Parents are responsible for their children and their children s welfare. Parents generally do what they think is best for child and the child’s future.

Circumcision is strictly a parental or personal choice, not anyone here or the governments. For some, G-d’s laws are more important to follow than any law a man can make. It just depends on personal beliefs.

29 Captain Concord October 3, 2011 at 2:14 PM

The government shouldn’t ban it… we should just ridicule and badger the people who think circumcision is a good idea into changing their minds.

Kind of like we did for smoking.

30 DD October 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Here’s a question along these lines

Is it true that Mohel’s just work for tips?

31 Clean Cut October 3, 2011 at 2:56 PM

If you don’t circumcise the males they have the potential to develope the same diseases and rotten odors as females.

32 Pleasant Jenny October 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM

tee hee….GoGo is at Bab’s right now disconnecting her Internet

33 Seaman October 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM

As far as I know, the military still requires it to be done. My cousin joined the Navy in 1995 and was required to have it done before enlisting.

34 Bob Loblaw October 3, 2011 at 3:17 PM

If this is all about parental choice or religious freedom, should a parent be allowed to wheel a newborn into a tattoo parlor and have “JESUS SAVES” or “YAWEH ROCKS” across the middle of his face?

Parents have certain rights and responsibilities where it pertains to their minor chlidren, but these rights are not absolute. The children have rights too, including the right not to have pieces of them chopped off for no good reason or their faces tattooed. Its an archaic, stoneage, practice to appease the gods and has no place in a modern civilized society.

And for the record, female circumcision is more invasive and barbaric, but you cannot oppose it and defend male circumcision. The basic premise is the same; ignorant adults chopping up their children for no good reason.

35 anon October 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM

@for those that believe. A personal choice… but who’s choice though? It doesn’t seem to me a days old infant has much of a choice and it is HIS body is it not? I get the religious reasons and there is no way to get around that unless you happen to be one VERY progressive and willing to go against the “tradition” which by the way, there are many! There are even jewish groups starting to form against it. So personal choice, sure, but it should be that boy’s choice. Period.

36 Family October 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Not sure why this is a political thing like so many other things that should not be political. Circumcision should be a family choice not a govt or legal choice. It would be nice if the govt would stay out of our lives.

37 mugpug October 3, 2011 at 4:19 PM

leave baby boys alone, let them keep their foreskins.

38 The Observer October 3, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Uncircumcised guys are commonly known as “Minutemen.”

39 mark October 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM

After reading it carefully, it appears that Governor Brown is making it illegal to ban circumcision, meaning he is ensuring parents and/or the individual still have a choice. All of your arguments are valid, but be sure to carefully read the text. In this case, he’s on our side!

40 Just like the left October 3, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Bob Loblaw does not believe in circumcision, therefore, no one for any reason should be circumcised. It is simply wrong for one person or group to make decisions such as this for everyone, but that is the way of the left.

It is none of lefts business if a parent chooses to circumcise their child for whatever reason. What is good for the left is never what is good for the rest of the people.

This is another matter of personal choice. It is none of your business. There is a limit of what people will tolerate, don’t step to far down that path.

41 anonomous October 3, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Snip it. Its up to the parents. I know a guy who had it done as an adult said it was the worst thing ever. Said he wished his parents had done it at birth. I think they are ugly if not snipped sorry guys.

42 Old Maid October 3, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Dear Mayor:

Thank you for this question.

43 DoReMi October 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM

The men I have known that are circumcized are not missing anything. It’s a myth that they are desensitized. LOL. Utter nonsense.

As for condoms, I have heard that uncircumcized males have a problem with using one successfully. So, in that sense, I would say circumcision is a step towards saving lives.

44 Think about this October 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM

To everyone thinking to leave the foreskin, think about this:

-How will your already potentially awkward boy feel the first time he showers or changes in a public/school shower and is made fun of for his “abnormal” organ?

-How will your boy feel the first time he has a sexual experience and his partner is shocked by his abnormal looking organ?

-How will your boy feel growing up when all he sees around him is circumcised penises, and his is different?

Many of you have forgotten how delicate young boys sexual perception can be. I have four boys, and alhough I would prefer them to be uncut, I chose circumcision to help them adjust to their sexual identity a little easier. It is already hard enough.

45 Clean Cut October 3, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Q. What do you call a penis that was circumcised using pinking shears?
A. A frilly Dilly.

46 Babs October 3, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Pleasant Jenny, that was pretty good…I laughed out loud!!!!

Staying away from this one, I’m not stupid…..I don’t want to have to sleep with one eye open!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But I do have another issue that is kind of like this…..what about babies having their ears pierced?????????? I had to wait until I was a teenager. I wonder if that is a cultural thing? I do see all sorts of people doing it.

47 @think about this October 3, 2011 at 7:19 PM

I chose not to have my son circumcised. It seemed barbaric to me. In addition, his father is not circumcised because he was born in Europe, where circumcision is rarely done, and he didn’t see any need for it. He grew up in the US and didn’t have any problems in the locker room or dating. My son is now in college and has never been teased because of this. It is very common for boys not to be circumsiced now. A 1999 federal study of hospital circumsicion rates found only 37% of infant boys in the western US were circumcised. In the rest of the country, the rates were 81% in the midwest, 66% in the northeast, and 64% in the south. I don’t think anyone has to worry about their son feeling “different” if they chose not to have him circumcised.

@DoReMi My uncircumcised husband never had any problem using a condom. Uncircumcised me all over the world use condoms. I think we can take that off the list of reasons to do it.

48 Pleasant Jenny October 3, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I will admit that I never thought twice about it (the whole “that’s what you did” thing) outside of being such a nervous mommy in the hospital all three times my three boyz were taken away and I could hear them scream down the hall? Poor babies. Poor me! The was all in the early 90’s.
I’m not very articulate and will admit that (another reason I am hopeless with the “talk about politics” thread), but….wasn’t this signed by Jerry Brown due to San Fran passing (or offering? again, I apologize) to ban circumcision in the City?

49 TinFoiler October 3, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I’m steering towards the stay uncut and let the boy decide later in life. Modern medicine is good enough that it doesn’t have to be done as an infant or on the 8th day.
#45, You sound like a female. What’s important is how it FEELS, not how it looks.
As for the whole locker room crap, are they still doing that? I showered once, and was teased & called “john holmes” after that. Nobody but your lover needs to see your junk.

And in case you didn’t know, an Uncircumcised Male can always get cut. A circumcised male doesn’t have that option.

50 anon October 3, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Babs, yes it is cultural, something that many latino cultures do when they are babies, sometimes within days. India too I believe.

51 ... October 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Exercise the freedom of choice.

Do what you want but don’t tell others what to do.

52 DD October 3, 2011 at 8:16 PM

I think that this State has better things to worry about than a dude getting snipped.

Anyone else agree?

53 Darwin October 3, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Ouch….I wish I could say they had to use the big tools when I had it done, but I would be lying.

54 michael October 3, 2011 at 8:25 PM

@think about this

Really?? Self esteem is your reason to mutilate a boys genitals?

Anyone remember Baal? It was ok for religious reasons to burn your fist born alive and circumcision is a throwback to this era and region. Religion has some barbaric practices.

Captain concord #29 has it right… ridicule this away… no laws

55 dead-serious Funny Man October 3, 2011 at 8:27 PM

can bellieve no or brought up the obvious! circumsicion makes yu gay!
aww okay may be it doesn’t. But if it did, yud betcha it would stop in a new York minute.

QUIT mutilating yur sons in the name of religion or cleanliness. those are both ignorant standpoints. If god told yu in his majic book to cut off yur daughters clitoris at birth woud yu blindly do that too??

56 @48 October 3, 2011 at 8:44 PM

I respect your views on leaving your son uncut, but do you really think your son or husband would ever admit that they were teased for being uncut? I know firsthand that men and women a like crack jokes about being uncut all the time. I know jokes were/are plentiful with teens as well.

Like it or not, more men are circumcised in the U.S. than not. Until this changes, there will be a stigma attached to being uncut.

One more thing to consider in your numbers is that those numbers don’t include circumcisions thay are done outside of the hospital. Often they are done soon after birth in the doctor office due to insurance coverage. Many insurance companies do not cover circumcisions, but I know firsthand there are ways around it.

57 Pleasant Jenny October 3, 2011 at 9:16 PM

@Babs: As a mother of one “adult” son and two very close to being so…I simply enjoy you and GoGo so much. You clearly enjoy a similiar relationship with GoGo as I do with mine so it’s fun. (Because we kicked ass when it mattered :)
As far as ear piercing: I so agree!!!! I was not allowed to pierce my ears until I was 16.
We had similiar upbringings, obiously.
Poor babies getting a needle shot through their ears :(

58 FirstW October 3, 2011 at 9:27 PM

I’m not a guy, but if I was I’d like to own decisions regarding my genitals not my doctors or parents. And in a religious aspect, God put that piece of skin their for a purpose and I don’t think it needs removing.

59 weird October 3, 2011 at 10:44 PM

that’s really weird about boys being unsure of themselves. if they felt uncomfortable in a locker room, they could just say they have a whole penis. a natural, whole penis. why would that be something to be ashamed of? also, for the religious part of it. why would god make a man with a part only to say he had to cut it off?

60 Hannibal Lecter October 3, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Anyone have a good onion ring recipe?

61 @doremi October 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Are you serious? Men all over Europe manage to use condoms quite normally!!

@think about this……my boys will not be ridiculed for having a perfectally normal penis, cutting a bit off is not normal! I Also think that in the heat of the moment it won’t be an issue. Your arguments are not valid in a society that has realised it is not medically needed or socially expected for males to be circumcised.

I have no regrets in choosing to not circumcise my children and I know my husband feels the same way, and he himself is circumcised.

62 @59 October 3, 2011 at 11:17 PM

If my husband had thought it would be more difficult for our son to go through life uncircumcised, he would have said so. But it was not a problem for him growing up and he didn’t see any reason to have our son circumcised. The fact is, most boys are NOT circumcised in our part of the country now. Times have changed, #59.

63 Clean Cut October 3, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Appendix, gall bladder, spleen, foreskin. All are redundant.

64 huh? October 3, 2011 at 11:37 PM

@think about it
so if your son was born with red hair which some of his classmates might make fun of it……. you would have it cut off and dyed…so he would be more “normal”……”here’s your sign”….

65 Mick October 4, 2011 at 12:19 AM

@Babs: I am still young, but my parents got my ears pierced when I was a baby. And up until now, I hardly ever wear earrings anymore, but the hole remains open. I’m not sure if this is for everyone, but a lot of my friend’s ear piercings, who got them done in their later years, seem to close if they take it out for a period of time.

66 smc626 October 4, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Two teenaged sons are now asking WHY did I allow doctors to DO THAT TO THEM??? Wish I hadn’t… Parents now have much more information available to them to help with the decision. If I knew then what I know now – I would have left them intact, just the way God made them, practically perfect in every way!

67 anon October 4, 2011 at 6:59 AM

Anon 68 I was referring to ear piercing as babies in Latino and Indian culture. Not circumcision.

68 anonymom October 4, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Also, just to give any future moms some courage. It is ok to change your mind. With my first, I didn’t know any better, and succumbed the “norm” and had it done. I changed pediatricians eventually and when I told my new one with my next son that I would not have it done he tried to say it was better they match. I kind of said “are you eff’ing kidding me?” that was an incredibly ridiculous reason. He supported my decision after that and freely admitted he was learning the care of an intact penis along with me. I read more than he did though and I would bring him articles which he did appreciate. Do not let anyone retract a newborn’s foreskin. You need to EDUCATE yourself on the car, the old time docs have no idea. As many have said though, MOST other cultures do not do this. We need to stop this ridiculous practice. Overall , and as a country, we have good hygiene and have available top notch knowledge. There is no reason to do it.. The reason that “his dad is,” or in my case, “his brother is,” was not good enough to the make the same mistake twice. Sure they’re different, but I’ll tell you, my boys have NEVER compared their penises!! They know the difference, and they know why.

69 Susan October 4, 2011 at 9:37 AM

It’s no one’s business except for the owner. When he’s 18 years old, he can decide for himself. The procedure is both cruel and uneccessary.

Study Links Circumcision to Personality Trait Disorder
Researchers find circumcised men have higher alexithymia scores than intact men. Alexithymia is the inability to process emotions.

Article | September 22, 2011 – T

The International Journal of Men’s Health has published the first study of its kind to look at the link between the early trauma of circumcision and the personality trait disorder alexithymia. The study, by Dan Bollinger and Robert S. Van Howe, M.D., M.S., FAAP, found that circumcised men are 60% more likely to suffer from alexithymia, the inability to process emotions.

People suffering from alexithymia have difficulty identifying and expressing their emotions. This translates into not being able to empathize with others. Sufferers of severe alexithymia are so removed from their feelings that they view themselves as being robots. If acquired at an early age, such as from infant circumcision, it might limit access to language and impede the socialization process that begins early in life. Moderate to high alexithymia can interfere with personal relationships and hinder psychotherapy. Impulsive behavior is a key symptom of alexithymia, and impulsivity is a precursor to violence.

The idea for the investigation came when the authors noticed that American men (for whom circumcision is likely) had higher alexithymia scores than European men (for whom circumcision is unlikely), and that European men had about the same scores as European and American women.

The study surveyed 300 circumcised and intact men using the standardized Toronto Twenty-Item Alexithymia Scale checklist. Circumcised men had higher scores across the board and a greater proportion of circumcised men had higher scores than intact men.

A common reason fathers give for deciding to circumcise their son is so they will “look alike,” but these authors speculate that perhaps a subconscious motivation is so that they will “feel alike,” in other words as equally distant and emotionally unavailable as themselves. It was beyond this study’s design to test for this, and yet the comments received from circumcised participants speak to a vast psychic wounding, which, if unresolved, might lead to an unconscious desire to repeat the trauma upon others.

The authors recommend that more research be conducted on this topic, but in the meantime, parents considering circumcising their infant son should be informed that circumcision might put their son at risk for alexithymia, including difficulty identifying and expressing his feelings, and for impulsive behavior. Psychologists counseling alexithymic patients should investigate the patient’s childhood and neonatal history for possible traumatic events, including circumcision.

If this pattern of men suffering from circumcision-related trauma holds true for the general populace, this would constitute a significant mental health problem and, considering that three-fourths of the U.S. male population is circumcised, a public health problem, too.

Alexithymia is from ancient Greek meaning, “having no words for feelings.” It was coined by psychotherapist Peter Sifneos in 1973 to describe a state of deficiency in understanding, processing, or describing emotions. Alexithymia tends to be persistent and chronic; it doesn’t diminish with time. This is unlike other trauma-based reactions, like post-traumatic stress disorder, which typically dissipate soon after the trauma.



70 CJ October 4, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Wow – I always thought my emotional center was in the left side of my brain. Turns out it was in my foreskin. Who knew?

71 DoReMi October 4, 2011 at 10:08 AM

@think about this: Thank you for your comment about condoms and the uncircumcised. I am no expert and clearly some here are. ;o)

72 @doremi October 4, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Where does think about this mention condoms??. Its a bit sad that the only person on here you refer to is one who thinks her sons only chance of knowing their sexual identity is through their missing foreskin!

I’m no expert but I don’t think having a foreskin = not being smart enough to use a condom properly…..look at all the circumcised idiots in the u.s having unsafe sex and unplanned pregnancies. Again your points are not valid.

73 NewsReader October 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Here’s something to think about. An article was just posted on msn.com that says infants who undergo general anesthesia more than once are more likely to develop learning disabilities. That info would make me less likely to allow my infant son to have an elective procedure such as circumcision. Why have your infant undergo anesthesia any more than is necessary?


74 anon October 4, 2011 at 3:15 PM

NewsReader, didn’t you know they DO NOT USE general anesthesia for circumcision? Some docs believe babies don’t feel pain! Some will use a local, but having a needle in your penis I’d assume is no more pleasant than a scalpel.

75 Think about this October 4, 2011 at 4:03 PM

I have to LOL at many of the comments on here. Waiting until the boy is 18 is FAR more risky and painful and generally discouraged.

To those of you that think your boy will not be made fun of think about this:

– How many jokes or terms can you think of for a boy that is uncut? Personally I have heard many in movies and on television. Not to mention amongst friends growing up.

– Have you ever heard of a boy being made fun of because he WAS circumcised?

@67- The color of ones hair is far different and less personal than a penis. We are required by law to cover our genitals in he U.S. for a reason. Apples and Oranges.

@77- In the U.S. anesthesia is not used for circumcisions on newborns.

Good thing we will all always have a choice on this matter. Opinion seems to vary greatly.

76 anon October 4, 2011 at 5:18 PM

I can’t think of any jokes about being in circumcised……..guess I hang with nicer people. And I don’t recall any in movies either and I’m no prude, don’t come back telling me all i watch is g rated movies because its far from the truth……

Choice is a wonderful thing and I’m still glad of the choice I made.

77 Hugh7 October 4, 2011 at 5:20 PM

The new bill (AB768) doesn’t just keep infant circumcision legal. It actually says
“No city, county, or city and county ordinance, regulation, or administrative action shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of a parent’s authority to have a child circumcised.”
That makes it legal for anyone, of any age, with no training, to circumcise anyone, with a boxcutter, so long as
1. one parent has consented
2. the victim is under 18
3. male, and
4. it’s a clean boxcutter.
– and a Bill before the Senate (HR2400) will spread that freedom across the USA.

The MGM Bill was never a ban, only an age-restriction, with an exemption for medically necessary circumcision, so it was taking nothing from doctors.

Yes, it is a personal choice, very personal, and there’s only one person who should have that choice, the one person who’s most directly affected by that choice, when he is old enough to choose for himself. There is no urgency. (The claim that it is safer or less painful for a baby is just hype, like “Buy now! Stocks won’t last!”)

Religion? Cutting part of his genitals off violates HIS religious freedom – for life.

A family decision? As one man said, but more colourfully –
“My family doesn’t [urinate] with my [p enis], my family doesn’t [masturbate] with my [pe nis] and my family doesn’t [have sexual intercourse] with my [pen is], so what business did my family have to go cutting part OFF of my [peni s]?”

Anonymous #39: excellent post, and actually in Australia and New Zealand in the 1950s they used to circumcise as ferociously as the USA, Now the rate is about 12% in Australia, and <1% in New Zealand (except non-Maori Polynesians). The result is that old men are circumcised, yourng are not, and a generation has grown up looking different from their fathers with no problems, and no outbreaks of any of the diseases circumcision was supposed to be good for. New Zealand's HIV rate is one of the lowest in the world.

@48: "more men are circumcised in the U.S. than not. "Until this changes, there will be a stigma attached to being uncut." This HAS changed. The majority is only marginal, and it's a minority in the west.

And which would you rather have to tell him – "Yours looks different because their parents all had part cut off, but we didn't"? Or "Yours looks different because their parents didn't have part cut off, but we did (because we didn't want you to look different)"?

78 CJ October 4, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Hey Anonymous #53: You seem like quite the Europhile/Francophile. I guess it’s a good thing they can F#@k. They sure as hell can’t fight!

79 Touchy Subject October 4, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Well my children were born 30 years ago, I was young and my pediatrician recommended it. However, my grandson (9 mos old) is not. I’m absolutely fine with that and believe his parents (both in their 30s) made an informed decision against it.

80 @80 October 4, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Where have you been your whole life?

Here are just a few that I remember:

Pump action pisser, water weenie is the pants, hooded horseman, pig in a blanket, extra casing on the sausage, elephant trunk and many more!

81 The Black Knight October 4, 2011 at 11:40 PM

I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: