The Circumcision Discussion - Page 89Register Today!
- Jan 24, '09 by BroadwayRNWhere are the guys? I think they should weigh in on this issue. They are after all the ones whose opinions count.
Phimosis may be uncommon but if you're the one with it then it automatically becomes a 100% probability!
- Jan 24, '09 by Smurfette752Quote from BroadwayRNAnd I know several adult males who resent being circ'd...and several others' that are GLAD that they weren't cut.I've had my ears pierced x 2 and I wasn't in the least traumatized, perhaps that is an individual reaction.
I have never heard a guy say he was traumatized by being circumsized. Seriously, have you? I do know several uncircumsized guys who wish they had been circumsized at birth because they're too chicken to do it now.
- It's time for everyone to take a deep breath and maybe a step or two back. This is an intense thread with lots of strong opinions, and that's fine. Good debate helps everyone sharpen their thinking. But the more a thread heats up, the more important it is for everyone to focus on issues and not on other posters.
Please, be courteous in making your points. Remember the ignore feature if certain posters bring out the worst in you.
- Jan 24, '09 by AirforceRNAhhhh, deep breath. My apologies for my last comment. I stand by the sentiment but it was probably better off as an inside thought and not a public one.
I've mentioned this before but...
Yes, older circumcisions are going to be harder on the patient then those done at birth. Yes, if you ask a 20 year old who was just circ'd due to infection or phimosis if they would have prefered to have it done as a newborn, they would probably say yes.
I don't think that is grounds to circ every male however. Just as I don't think every female newborn should have radical mastectomies "just in case."
Personally, I think as time goes on, fewer and fewer boys will be getting circ'd as more and more people realize that its not necessary. With this trend, the aesthetic viewpoint of the male penis will inevitably change so fewer girls will find uncut men "gross" or "nasty"...this in turn will lead to fewer circs...etc...etc. Eventually even porn will have uncut men being featured. Just my thoughts.
- Quote from BroadwayRNThis is equivalent to advocating prophylactic amputation just because there's a chance your son might break his leg in the future.I think circumcision is a good thing. Sure it's painful but within minutes the baby is quiet again. They cry the first few times they pee but again within minutes the baby is quiet again. I don't think the act of infant circumcision has destroyed anyones mental health. I haven't heard any men say they feel as though they were raped, mamed, abused, whatever by their parents because they were circumsized.
We had a small boy in the ER with phimosis and it was horrible! He had to undergo an emergent circumcision. I visited the child several times afterwards (I happened to be their neighbor) and that poor child was in agony for several weeks. The mother had been berated about having her son circ'd when he was born and she gave into the pressure and did not have him circ'd. She said she will never ever again have a son without having him circ'd before they leave the hospital. The little 3 year old boy was on a narcotic pain med for almost 3 weeks and took 5 weeks to completely recover.
It is genital mutilation, no matter how you slice it.
- I have asked some of the men in my family how they feel about circumcision. To them the whole topic is no big deal. And this is regardless of age. They all seemed to feel that this is a private family decision. None of them felt that their folks had made the wrong decision. None of them mentioned anything close to feeling traumatized. They looked at me funny when I mentioned that possibility.
For the record, all but one were circumcised. The exception wouldn't have minded if he had been, so long as it had been done in infancy like the rest of the guys. He doesn't think he would do it now, but that's because he is a big weenie (pardon the pun) when it comes to pain.
They were all a bit surprised that this would be such a controversial topic on a nursing discussion board. Again, the feeling was that this is a private and personal matter to be decided within the family. Of the ones who have boy children, they have all opted (with their significant others concurring) to have their sons circed and would do so again with future children. Their biggest concern was that proper anesthesia was used.
These are loving, decent men who care about themselves and their kids. They don't see themselves as having been harmed by being circed. They certainly do not equate it with mutilation. They are mentally and emotionally intact, regardless of the state of their genitalia.
That said, they would not look down on anyone who chose not to circ. That "personal and private" attitude goes both ways.
- rn/writer, with all due respect, they don't mind because it is largely a cultural norm.
I guarantee you females in traditional Chinese families probably aren't all that concerned with the practice of foot binding from birth, nor are the cultures where female genital mutilation practiced. Such practices are equally traditional cultural norms, and in my opinion, equally barbaric. I could retype your entire post substituting foot binding or labial removal/suturing and it'd be as true for those in such cultures.
And yeah, I'm a guy.
- I see what you are saying. There is some truth to the idea that it is a cultural norm, but I respectfully disagree with equating infant male circumcision with either foot-binding or labial suturing/removal.
Both of the practices you mention have subjugation of the female as a primary goal. They result in severe ongoing pain and crippling of normal function. Foot binding is a lengthy and excruciating process designed to keep girls and women hobbled and subservient. Labial suturing/removal is done without anesthesia or sterile technique (not that either of those would make it acceptable), and is meant to instill a subordinate attitude toward male domination and eliminate any possibility of female sexual pleasure.
Male circumcision is not done for the purpose of crushing the male spirit and rendering men unable to enjoy sex. It isn't meant to exercise crippling gender-based authority and domination. Some may say that it disfigures, but others would challenge that view. At any rate, it doesn't cause the extreme (and ongoing) suffering that females endure with the above-mentioned "procedures."
Yes, circumcision is a controversial practice, and it's doubtful that there will be a meeting of the minds any time soon. But putting male circumcision on the same level as foot binding or labial suturing/removal does not acknowledge the vast difference in intent or results, and it introduces an element of emotional manipulation that doesn't play fair.
- Jan 24, '09 by AirforceRNQuote from rn/writerAgreed...but why is it done? Nowadays I would suspect the main answer is "tradition" which, to me at least, isn't a good enough reason to undergo surgery...especially on a penis.Male circumcision is not done for the purpose of crushing the male spirit and rendering men unable to enjoy sex.