Need some info on circing

[birdinhand]

When it comes down to it, for me (not you, not everyboy, any anyone else, this is my own stewardship as a parent), I have two very strong beliefs that led me to my decision.

1-I have spiritual beliefs that tell me (again, my interpretaion and my relationship) we were designed in God's image. Circumcision was this one thing we did to change what I felt were perfect baby boys. I understand the Bible, and I believe in the Bible, and I believe that when it was a commandment back then, things were far different. It was a way to differentiate between two peoples, and people did not have ready access to soap and water, lived in dry, desert climates, etc. In my religious beliefs according to my religion, the law of circumcision was done away with because of the blood of Christ.

2-It really isn't my body. I can't think of permanent ways I have altered my boys' bodies. Perhaps to come it can be equated to getting your baby's ears pierced when they can't consent (I am a Mexican baby, my ears were pierced in Mexico before I was 2 months old). But it seems to be so much more than that to me. If my kids come to me later and ask why I didn't have the cicr'd, I will tell them, I didn't feel I had the power to make that choice for you in a non-emergent, non-medical situation; if they want to be circ'd later, I will pay for it, knowing it is their decision.

Most of the parents who come to my childbirth classes have already made up their minds about circ, and that is fine -- people don't generally change their mind when they are 7 or 8 months pregnant. I do believe we all have stewardship over our own children and we do have the power to make those vital decisions in a way that we can live with. No one is trying to do it wrong, kwim? We are all trying to do out best. So how can we fault one another over a decision we "feel" is wrong?

That is just how I came to my decision, one of my parenthood paths I have made, and it was something that took many years to shape. Everyone is on a different journey. We are all trying to be the best we can for our kids. One answer isn't right for every family.

[DesertRat]

Originally Posted by birdinhand 1-I have spiritual beliefs that tell me (again, my interpretaion and my relationship) we were designed in God's image. Circumcision was this one thing we did to change what I felt were perfect baby boys. I understand the Bible, and I believe in the Bible, and I believe that when it was a commandment back then, things were far different. It was a way to differentiate between two peoples, and people did not have ready access to soap and water, lived in dry, desert climates, etc. In my religious beliefs according to my religion, the law of circumcision was done away with because of the blood of Christ.

I totally agree with this. However, when I started reading about how circumcision can affect sexual function it really started to bother me. I mean, I couldn't see how God would command that because I do believe that our bodies are perfect. Then I ran across some things about how anciently circumcision was so different. This and this are interesting reads. They did not remove the entire foreskin like we do today. It totally made more sense after that. When you think about how circumcision is done today, a lot of babies would have died in ancient Israel of infection, blood loss, etc because they didn't have the knowledge we do or the "modern" medical care. Anyway, after reading that, ancient circumcision doesn't bother me anymore.

[songbird516]

Originally Posted by DesertRat I totally agree with this. However, when I started reading about how circumcision can affect sexual function it really started to bother me. I mean, I couldn't see how God would command that because I do believe that our bodies are perfect. Then I ran across some things about how anciently circumcision was so different. This and this are interesting reads. They did not remove the entire foreskin like we do today. It totally made more sense after that. When you think about how circumcision is done today, a lot of babies would have died in ancient Israel of infection, blood loss, etc because they didn't have the knowledge we do or the "modern" medical care. Anyway, after reading that, ancient circumcision doesn't bother me anymore.

I agree with you mostly, but I would argue that the Mosaic Law contained many laws pertaining to hygeine that were really outstanding and not understood fully until much later, like..1900s. Quarantine, washing after touching dead bodies, keeping sick people away from healthy people, even protecting the Israelites from mold ("leprosy" in a house), etc. I do agree that circ was not as extensive then, though, because even with those precautions there would have been nfants with infections and/or excessive blood loss.

[abunchoflemons]

my pedi said most will suggest circ in midwest & it is more common here to do so but noncirc on coasts #s rising.

[DesertRat]

Originally Posted by songbird516 I agree with you mostly, but I would argue that the Mosaic Law contained many laws pertaining to hygeine that were really outstanding and not understood fully until much later, like..1900s. Quarantine, washing after touching dead bodies, keeping sick people away from healthy people, even protecting the Israelites from mold ("leprosy" in a house), etc. I do agree that circ was not as extensive then, though, because even with those precautions there would have been nfants with infections and/or excessive blood loss.

I realize the Mosaic Law was much more than just circumcision. I'm just expressing my relief that ancient circumcision did not remove the entire foreskin. I had a really hard time believing God would have commanded that.

[Kiliki]

Originally Posted by DesertRat I used to feel this exact same way too. Most men I know are circ'd so it didn't seem like that big of a deal, even when we decided to keep our 1st DS intact. Then I started reading about how much sensitive sexual tissue is in the foreskin, and how much it removing it can affect not only the sensitivity, but how it "works" during intercourse. While I know circ'd men still have fulfilling sex lives, circumcision doesn't seem like "just a cosmetic procedure" anymore. It changes things too much to just be cosmetic.

I don't know if you misunderstood me or something...

I'm saying that unless you are so religiously convicted TO circ, then circ'ing really serves pretty much no other purpose other than to make a penis more aesthetically pleasing. ( = cosmetic procedure.)

There's really not a good MEDICAL reason to circ. Which makes circ'ing a religious thing, or a cultural thing. And if it's not religious, it's cultural - done b/c of what a person thinks a "normal" penis should LOOK like.

Hope that makes more sense.

[DesertRat]

Originally Posted by Kiliki I don't know if you misunderstood me or something... I'm saying that unless you are so religiously convicted TO circ, then circ'ing really serves pretty much no other purpose other than to make a penis more aesthetically pleasing. ( = cosmetic procedure.) There's really not a good MEDICAL reason to circ. Which makes circ'ing a religious thing, or a cultural thing. And if it's not religious, it's cultural - done b/c of what a person thinks a "normal" penis should LOOK like. Hope that makes more sense.

No, I understood you. (I think) The point I was trying to make was... things like tattoos, piercings, changing your hair color, etc are "cosmetic." They don't change the function of anything. Calling circumcision a "cosmetic procedure" assumes that the foreskin doesn't do anything and that nothing is affected by removing it. My point was, circumcision DOES change things. Removing the foreskin affects sensitivity and it affects sexual pleasure for both the man and the woman. I realize that most people don't know that. So it's easy to justify circumcision when you believe that it's just cosmetic.

For this reason, when talking to people about circumcision, I don't spend a lot of time debunking the myths about UTIs and STD rates. I tell them to really research the "function of a foreskin." I think that's what's left out of the mainstream circumcision conversation. People need to know that it DOES affect the penis. And personally, I think when people realize that, they are less inclined to choose circumcision for their children.

[birdinhand]

Yes, most people don't know the purpose of the prepuce, it isn't a random peice of tissue.

[Kiliki]

Originally Posted by DesertRat The point I was trying to make was... things like tattoos, piercings, changing your hair color, etc are "cosmetic." They don't change the function of anything. Calling circumcision a "cosmetic procedure" assumes that the foreskin doesn't do anything and that nothing is affected by removing it.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. I think ANYTHING people do for a cosmetic purpose can have lasting, awful effects, and can/does permanently alter the way your body typically works. Any alteration you make to your natural body can end very badly. It's part of the risk you take when you change your body to make the appearance different. Not trying to debate, but we see things differently here...

[~KittyKat~]

There have been studies showing that all of the claims that are made FOR circumcising are completely invalid, but since these were independent studies, the medical community largely ignores them. They claim that since you aren't supposed to ever retract an intact boy's foreskin (he should be the first one to do it when he's old enough) that all sorts of stuff gathers in between the glans and foreskin. This is called Smegma and is comparatively the same as a woman's vaginal secretions. A vagina is self cleaning and so is a penis in it's natural state .