Circ on a 2yr old?

BSNtobe2009 · Oct 19, 2006

Point well taken

I do know that the United States and Canada circumcise more males for non-religious reasons than any other industrialized country. I guess it's just my personal hangup, but I think if someone can't do it when the infant is small then they should wait until he is older and to understand and make that decision on his own.

Not this is the same thing, I always thought if I had a daughter I would get her ears pierced when she was a baby (b/c babies with tiny studs just look so adorable to me). However, b/c she was in the hospital for so long before she came home, no way was I about to put her through anything else that was unnecessary, so I'll wait until she is older and when she decides she wants them, off we'll go!

BSNtobe2009 · Oct 19, 2006

Perhaps I misunderstood, but what Christian beliefs would support circumcision?

I don't know the details of the story (if there is someone here that is Jewish they are more well-versed in the Biblical reasons than most Christians are), but it has something to do with the "Covenant of Abraham", to separate themselves physically from the non-believers.

It's much more detailed than that, but I think it's along those lines.

hikernurse · Oct 19, 2006

I don't know the details of the story (if there is someone here that is Jewish they are more well-versed in the Biblical reasons than most Christians are), but it has something to do with the "Covenant of Abraham", to separate themselves physically from the non-believers.
It's much more detailed than that, but I think it's along those lines.

I don't know much more than that, either, but I did see a book at the library once that said there was a push (must be an incredibly small one) for men to have foreskins replaced in adulthood. The book related this to Christian reasons; can't name the denomination unfortunately.

I can't imagine a prosthetic foreskin; it just sounds like a lot of pain and fuss for something that couldn't possibly function in the way an intact one would. I guess theoretically this is an option, though:uhoh21:

maolin · Oct 19, 2006

This is certainly a tough call to make. I think it definity needs to include consultation with a urologist, and maybe a developmental psychologist. To add to the others thoughts for consideration is the stage of development your son is in (someone mentioned this in their reply). 2-3 yrs old is particularly fragile when it comes to this sort of thing. Note Freuds stages of pyschosexual development (I'm not a Freud fan, but some of this does ring true.) At 2-3 he's learning to gain control over toileting and the genitals are especially the focus - to make a change at this time might be overwhelming not only physically (post op pain, r/f complications), but psychologically - perhaps he may feel the procedure was a punishment for not toileting, etc. A general sense of inadequacy - why else would they cut it off? (Freud's castration theory). OTOH - it does say the male child wants to be as much like Dad as possible - if dad is circ, then he may have negative feelings as to why he isn't.

From Wikipedia:

Phallic phase

At 24 months to about 48 months the libidinal energy shifts from the anal region to the genital region. This is where the Oedipus or Electra complex is developed. The young boy falls in love with his mother and wishes that his father was not in the way of his love (the Oedipus Complex). At this point he notices that women have no member and fears that the punishment of his father for being in love with his wife, may be castration. This fear is enhanced if he is shouted at for masturbation at this stage. Once the fear of retaliation has subsided the boy will learn to earn his mother's love vicariously by becoming as much like his father as possible. This is where the superego stems from. He will adopt his father's beliefs and ideals as his own and move on to the latency stage.

bookwormom · Oct 19, 2006

Got this off the net; don't have a Bible at hand. I think the idea is that being Christian doesn't require circumcision.

From 1 Corinthians:

7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

danh3190 · Oct 19, 2006

Got this off the net; don't have a Bible at hand. I think the idea is that being Christian doesn't require circumcision.
From 1 Corinthians:
7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

I don't think this has anything to do with a requirement for a Christian to be circumcised or not. In the early Church some argued that all new converts had to become Jews, i.e. become circumcised, since Jesus and the first Christians were Jewish and Christianity could be viewed as a sect of Judaism. However later with Paul especially, and Peter (Acts chapter 10) it was decided that one could be a Christian without being Jewish so there was no reason to be circumcised on conversion to Christianity.

mvanz9999, RN · Oct 20, 2006

I don't know much more than that, either, but I did see a book at the library once that said there was a push (must be an incredibly small one) for men to have foreskins replaced in adulthood. The book related this to Christian reasons; can't name the denomination unfortunately.
I can't imagine a prosthetic foreskin; it just sounds like a lot of pain and fuss for something that couldn't possibly function in the way an intact one would. I guess theoretically this is an option, though:uhoh21:

Actually, the true reason for all religious based circumcision is to discourage masturbation. While not explicitely stated in religious texts, this is the true reason (now it's more tradition). Circumcision is predomitely Jewish in nature.

There is actually a rather LARGE (but silent) movement for the resoration of foreskin. A simple search on Google will reveal an enormous number of websites, newgroups, and support groups for men who wish to restore. While this can be done surgically, the skin can also be stretched (over a period of many, many years) using various systems of weights, pulleys, straps and so on.

There are a lot of angry men out there (myself being one of them). We want the rest of us back. I agree 100% that restoration cannot possibly restore the sensations of a true foreskin, dabbling in this has proven that it does help a great deal.

For whatever reason, this really isn't talked about publicly (or even amongst friends). But I believe there are a larger group of men than anyone realizes -- men that secretly have this anger, and therefore frequent the sites and support groups.

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

veggiegarden · Oct 20, 2006

Well, I guess an infection would remind said child to clean well.
I have heard the comment that uncircumcised men look funny. Well, you wouldn't think that if NO men were circumcised, correct? An intact male would look like every other intact male.
As for the medical arguments, they do not warrent circumcision. While it is SUSPECTED that there are certain health benefits, they are so small it does not warrent this procedure. Females have similar problems - yeast and/or bladder infections of various sorts, yet they are left intact.
My belief is that this is how we are born, the skin is there for a reason (I'll not bore you with the details) and should be left as it is.
I have read various accounts of anywhere from 75%-82% (much MUCH lower in the US) of the world's men being intact. They show no gross diseases or other complications.
I suppose this really isn't even the topic of this thread. I would just strongly encourage anyone to research the topic before making a decision. (I have strong feelings on the subject as well - is it obvious?)

ITA.

And as for the OP, I would *not* let my husband influence the 'circing of my son. I think it is a very unnecessary procedure. In this instance, not my body, not my choice.

hikernurse · Oct 21, 2006

Actually, the true reason for all religious based circumcision is to discourage masturbation. While not explicitely stated in religious texts, this is the true reason (now it's more tradition). Circumcision is predomitely Jewish in nature.
There is actually a rather LARGE (but silent) movement for the resoration of foreskin. A simple search on Google will reveal an enormous number of websites, newgroups, and support groups for men who wish to restore. While this can be done surgically, the skin can also be stretched (over a period of many, many years) using various systems of weights, pulleys, straps and so on.
There are a lot of angry men out there (myself being one of them). We want the rest of us back. I agree 100% that restoration cannot possibly restore the sensations of a true foreskin, dabbling in this has proven that it does help a great deal.
For whatever reason, this really isn't talked about publicly (or even amongst friends). But I believe there are a larger group of men than anyone realizes -- men that secretly have this anger, and therefore frequent the sites and support groups.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Wow, that's interesting. I would never have thought...OK, dumb question now: Wouldn't all that "effort" actually cause discomfort, at least in the short run? Would there be longer term benefits other than appearance? Other than being married and having little boys, I admit I haven't spent a whole lotta time dwelling on foreskins, so this is kind of new. However, it does involve an integral part of the body and I can see where men could have strong opinions r/t it.

mvanz9999, RN · Oct 21, 2006

Wow, that's interesting. I would never have thought...OK, dumb question now: Wouldn't all that "effort" actually cause discomfort, at least in the short run? Would there be longer term benefits other than appearance? Other than being married and having little boys, I admit I haven't spent a whole lotta time dwelling on foreskins, so this is kind of new. However, it does involve an integral part of the body and I can see where men could have strong opinions r/t it.

No, it's not at all painful. The general idea is to apply tension basically 24x7 for 3-5 years to stretch the skin enough to cover the glans. It's not painful tension, it's rather mild and from what I've read, rather unnoticeable after the first week or two.

Benefits to restoration? Definitely. As you probably know, the glans is a mucous membrane, not "skin". In circumcised males, the glans is dried out and thickened (keratinized). Restoring the foreskin reduces the thickness of the skin by protecting it and retaining some moisture. This effectively reduces the thickness of the skin over the nerves, allowing more sensation.

There are also various contraptions that do not "restore" the foreskin but do provide the benefits by covering (and protecting) the glans. Offering the same benefits (but with the annoyance of wearing something constantly).

Since the foreskin contains a massive amount of nerve endings (including specialized nerves located only in the foreskin), restoring can never equal someone intact, it does provide some benefits - including increased feeling.

Literature also indicates that a high percentage of circumcised males have erectile disfunction that is not present (in the same percentage) in intact males. (witness the enormous sales of Viagra, Cialis, etc).

I cannot verify any of this personally since I'm circumcised, but there are a few adults that chose to do this in adulthood and have spoken about it. Most of them later changed their minds and wish they hadn't have done it. Additionally, those adults say the circumcision was incredibly painful (the glans is extremely sensitive in uncircumcised males), which is why I would advise against performing this on a 2 1/2 year old.

Wow, I've managed to turn this into a rant against circumcision, apologies for that. Everyone is free to form their own opinion, I'm just stating mine.

Doing a search on 'foreskin restoration' will lead to some good links. I cannot post them here, as many of them have rather explicit pics.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Oct 21, 2006

circumcision

circumcision -- familydoctor.org

medlineplus: circumcision

circumcision.net provides insights to ritual circumcision, known ...

RGN1 · Oct 21, 2006

In the UK we do not circumcise except for medical or religious reasons. In all my years I have never seen evidence of "terrible infections" amongst our boys or men as one poster has suggested. They play with it quite enough in the bath to get it clean!!

If your son is circumcised under full anaesthesia I'm sure he 'd be OK & I'm sure he wouldn't have any lasting psychological harm from it either but it's still, at the end of the day, uneccessary surgery. All surgery carries risks & this just seems to be a risk not worth taking.

Both my sons had phymosis & had to have medical circs, one at 18 months the other at 8 years. Both were under full anaesthetic & both had nerve blocks to carry them through the first 12-24 hours post op. There is no way I would have wanted to put either of them through this for no reason. Despite the blocks it is sore for a while & the stitches get caught in their underwear etc etc. However, neither of them suffered psychologically & they are both aware that we had no choice in the matter.

Oh & BTW circumcision does not lessen the amount that they "play" with themselves at all!!! It's the same with or without the skin!!! At the end of the day they're MALE!!

At the end of the day I suppose it's your call but at the very least make sure it's done with full anaesthesia by a very competent urologist. Personally I hope your little man gets to keep his foreskin after all if it wasn't meant to be there it wouldn't be!!