Support NeoGAF

[kame-sennin]

It happens at birth most of the time. Most, if not all credible studies point towards long term memory development happening many months later. No one remembers the most important moment of their lives, why would they remember a quick pinch afterwards?

WAT

Myth 1: They just cut off a flap of skin.

Reality check: Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Check out these photos: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html

Myth 2: It doesn't hurt the baby.

Reality check: Wrong. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision. As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia. The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study. Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies' pain. Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure (Lander 1997).

Myth 3: My doctor uses anesthesia.

Reality check: Not necessarily. Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do. The most common reasons why they don't? They didn't think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long (Stang 1998). A circumcision with adequate anesthesia takes a half-hour - if they brought your baby back sooner, he was in severe pain during the surgery.

Myth 4: Even if it is painful, the baby won't remember it.

Reality check: The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000). Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999). Even with a lack of explicit memory and the inability to protest - does that make it right to inflict pain? Ethical guidelines for animal research whenever possible* - do babies deserve any less?

Myth 5: My baby slept right through it.

Reality check: Not possible without total anesthesia, which is not available. Even the dorsal penile nerve block leaves the underside of the penis receptive to pain. Babies go into shock, which though it looks like a quiet state, is actually the body's reaction to profound pain and distress. Nurses often tell the parents "He slept right through it" so as not to upset them. Who would want to hear that his or her baby was screaming in agony?

Myth 6: It doesn't cause the baby long-term harm.

Reality check: Incorrect. Removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting patient is, in itself, harm (more on this point later). Circumcision has an array of risks and side effects. There is a 1-3% complication rate during the newborn period alone (Schwartz 1990). Here is a short list potential complications.

Meatal Stenosis: Many circumcised boys and men suffer from meatal stenosis. This is a narrowing of the urethra which can interfere with urination and require surgery to fix.

Adhesions. Circumcised babies can suffer from adhesions, where the foreskin remnants try to heal to the head of the penis in an area they are not supposed to grow on. Doctors treat these by ripping them open with no anesthesia.

Buried penis. Circumcision can lead to trapped or buried penis - too much skin is removed, and so the penis is forced inside the body. This can lead to problems in adulthood when the man does not have enough skin to have a comfortable erection. Some men even have their skin split open when they have an erection. There are even more sexual consequences, which we will address in a future post.​

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...9/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

 

[UnforgivenTwin]

hmm. you do know that it can feel great to have a foreskin? with the nerve endings and all. and not having to ever use lube, can save some money as well.

i'd honestly rather have a finger chopped off than my foreskin which feels like an essential part of my genitalia. maybe it's just me though, what do i know, maybe others don't have nerve endings in their foreskin or maybe for some having no foreskin feels even better. it's probably possible.
anyone experienced both..?

it's really strange because a lot of people who undergo adult circumcisions say they like it better, while others say they liked being uncut better :/ But the only man who can TRULY know the difference is that guy with the two dicks. We should contact him and request that he curcumcises one. You know, for science!

 

[iceatcs]

Can't imagine fresh circumcised babies with nappy on. Such dangerous.

 

[Kinitari]

Circumcision group:

Evidence that circumcision may have some very minor positive medical consequences --> "circumcission, fuck yeah! even scientists agree."

Evidence that circumcission may have some negative medical consequences --->
"these scientists must be wrong. circumcission fuck yeah!"

Can't really understand the circumcission hype in the USA. it's an unneeded procedure if you have access to water.
just let your kids decide when they are old enough. how fucking hard is that to understand?

There absolutely is some confirmation bias when it comes to stuff like this, and that's apparent on 'both sides' of the debate - but it isn't as simple as you frame it.

There is a host of evidence for the medical benefits, some weak some strong - but generally enough that it has swayed quite a few medical organizations to consider the potential health benefits - and they can pretty tightly tie causative links in many of those studies (for example, frequency of UTI). However this study is not even really doing much more than potentially getting people -interested- in doing a better study on the potential for circumcision to contribute to autism, and the amount of correlative compounding factors are high (for example, I think immigrants are more likely to have kids with autism in countries not of their origin. They also generally have different diets, and a whole slew of other considerations).

In general - the study itself isn't a -bad- study, I just think that some people might be too eager to read more into than necessary - and sure, some people are going to dismiss it quickly off the bat - those people are going to need a lot more than this to convince them, however.

 

[Valhelm]

That conclusion is ludicrous.

It's much more likely that families who circumcise their children have other factors that could lead to autism. Given Scandinavian attitudes about circumcision, I would guess that very many of the sampled children are Jewish or Muslim. Jewish people are disproportionately autistic. While I'm not familiar of research performed on Arab populations, the genetic closeness of Jewish and Levantine Arab people might mean that autism is common in both groups.

Because circumcision is not the norm in Denmark, families that do circumcise may often share a religious, genetic, socioeconomic, or intra-cultural background.

 

[Always-honest]

Autism? Man that sounds strange. I don't know. This doesn't sound like it has a lot of logic in it.
But i think it's stranger that people circumcise their baby boys out of some silly tradition.

Having said that, i'm circumsised and it does have some advantages.. but also some disadvantages. At a later age i would like people to have the choice.

 

[UnforgivenTwin]

Autism? Man that sounds strange. I don't know. This doesn't sound like it has a lot of logic in it.
But i think it's stranger that people circumcise their baby boys out of some silly tradition.

Having said that, i'm circumsised and it does have some advantages.. but also some disadvantages. At a later age i would like people to have the choice.

I agree sir

 

[hockeypuck]

That conclusion is ludicrous.

It's much more likely that families who circumcise their children have other factors that could lead to autism. Given Scandinavian attitudes about circumcision, I would guess that very many of the sampled children are Jewish or Muslim. Jewish people are disproportionately autistic. While I'm not familiar of research performed on Arab populations, the genetic closeness of Jewish and Levantine Arab people might mean that autism is common in both groups.

Because circumcision is not the norm in Denmark, families that do circumcise may often share a religious, genetic, socioeconomic, or intra-cultural background.

You didn't read the paper. The researchers controlled for Muslim background (or at least claim to have controlled for it). There was a Muslim population that was not circumcised and rates of autism were compared to the Muslim population that was circumcised. A difference was found.

 

[Unicorn]

ASD is genetic.

Also, why am I not autistic?

 

[Smellycat]

What a ridiculous assertion

 

[GameGuru59]

WAT
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...9/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

Well damn, I'll consider that then.

 

[Valhelm]

You didn't read the paper. The researchers controlled for Muslim background (or at least claim to have controlled for it). There was a Muslim population that was not circumcised and rates of autism were compared to the Muslim population that was circumcised. A difference was found.

Interesting, thanks. Although I'm still a little bit wary. Given the importance of circumcision in most Islamic cultures, I wonder if the non-cutting Muslims tend to differ in similar ways.

They're probably more secular, for instance. This may mean that they come from a different ethnic background (I would guess that Albanian immigrants are more willing to not cut than Pakistani immigrants), may be of partial Danish descent, and may differ socioeconomically from most other Danish Muslims.

The only way to really prove a connection between variables is through experimentation, which is impossible with human populations. Still, this certainly suggests a link between autism and circumcision.

 

[Always-honest]

Well damn, I'll consider that then.

Yeah reasons enough to not do that to your kid.
I mean goddamn.. how backwards can you be to think this is okay to do to a baby?

Especially considereing the way they do it in some cultures.

In my case it was a necessity. It was done in a hospital with the utmost care and precision. I'm fine with it. Glad it happened and it looks fine.
But i've seen people do this like they were chopping a leek. Kids being scarred for life.

 

[Flo_Evans]

The foreskin..no longer has purpose to exist.

Don't be a scientist.

I see you still haven't discovered hanes living tissue boxer briefs.

 

[Arcteryx]

Such a shitty assertion.

Christ, with that logic, I have autism because I fell off my bike as a child and broke a finger.

edit: their ASD percentage is pretty much par for global rates of ASD in the population, so yea,
they might as well try and link it to asthma(which they do, lol), Ebola, cancer, diabetes, SARS, swine-flu,
eye-disorders, bubonic plague, measles, and chicken pox.

 

[CornBurrito]

correlation does not equal causation

Do you say this about the studies that correlate circumcision with lower rates of STD and urinary tract infections?

 

[Kinitari]

You didn't read the paper. The researchers controlled for Muslim background (or at least claim to have controlled for it). There was a Muslim population that was not circumcised and rates of autism were compared to the Muslim population that was circumcised. A difference was found.

Incase the study hasn't been linked yet http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/07/0141076814565942.full.pdf+html

What are your thoughts on the hazard ratio and the confidence interval? I don't know if they suggest that the findings are within a margin of error or not, but I read a comment somewhere that it does.

Do you say this about the studies that correlate circumcision with lower rates of STD and urinary tract infections?

Well, I'm pretty sure a lot of the UTI studies talk about causality - bacteria captured in the foreskin.

 

[Tesseract]

Do you say this about the studies that correlate circumcision with lower rates of STD and urinary tract infections?

ether

 

[commedieu]

I think circumcision is turning me gay... or giving me cancer.

Not sure.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Don't you have to clean the interior? That would make it more complex than an uncircumcised penis.

Yeah, see that would make it more complicated. I don't want to have to worry about "irritants" getting in between my son's foreskin and his dick. The foreskin no-longer has a purpose to exist, statistically, its a medical detriment, and people tend not to like the way it looks. That's really all the justification I need.

Pulling back foreskin is not complex. It's actually trivially easy and you are definitely using hyperbole to describe it in any other fashion.

I have never had to worry about irritants between my foreskin and dick 29 years and counting.

Your hair serves no purpose when you can wear clothing such as a hat but you probably aren't cutting it all off even though it complicates the washing process. Oh dear I have to use a different kind of soap and maybe even a conditioner thats complex and complicated. It isn't and you are being disingenuous.

 

[Stet]

Do you say this about the studies that correlate circumcision with lower rates of STD and urinary tract infections?

No, because those establish causal links??

 

[hockeypuck]

Incase the study hasn't been linked yet http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/07/0141076814565942.full.pdf+html

What are your thoughts on the hazard ratio and the confidence interval? I don't know if they suggest that the findings are within a margin of error or not, but I read a comment somewhere that it does.

For this type of association, if the lower limit in the confidence interval is above 1, then the difference is significant. The higher the hazard ratio, the stronger the difference. You'll see that many confidence intervals in the study (for hyperactivity disorder and asthma, for example) the lower limits were less than 1, or even negative. That means the hazard ratio was not significant. But also importantly, the smaller the range within a significant confidence interval, the more "believable" the HR. That's why the HR of 1.54 in Muslim 0-4 group is probably closer to the "truth" than the HR of 4.23 in the non-Muslim 0-4 group. Interestingly, the lower limit CI of the non-Muslim group was still 1.90, higher than the Muslim group. HR of 1 is the "baseline" risk, the control group risk.

The CI of the non-Muslim group isn't as tight as the CI of the Muslim group. That's because the Muslim group had more circumcision+autism cases (28 versus 6). More available data, generally the better the analysis.

 

[spekkeh]

Looks like an entirely spurious correlation then. I read a study about a decade ago that turkish and moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands had a higher chance of being schizophrenic, which the researchers primarily attributed to growing up in two different ethical systems. Seeing as the circumcision group is almost completely muslim, it would be more logical to search for it in the direction of their cultural background.

edit: Moroccan but not Turkish http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/4/367.long

 

[J.W.Crazy]

Well damn, I'll consider that then.

Yeah, somebody posted that in the last circumcision thread. It's pretty amazing how little people (maybe just me!) know about such a common procedure. The fact that the foreskin is attached to the penis like finger nails was surprising and shocking. It's not a quick snip. You have to bluntly separate the foreskin from the head of the penis before you can remove it. There's no way that's not excruciatingly painful. Phimosis is actually impossible to diagnose in babies because the foreskin shouldn't retract at that age but many doctors still push for circumcision on that basis.

The thing that got me the most was that so many people point to hygiene and infection as a reason to circumcise but in some cases it's the overzealous and ill-informed hygiene that causes the infection. There's no reason to retract and clean under a baby's foreskin. The finger nail like attachment remains intact until the age of 3 and in some amount until the age of 10 on average. Pulling it back increases the chance of infection by exposing it to bacteria. It's also painful and can cause tearing that could end up fusing the foreskin to the head of the penis Johnny Tremain style!

 

[Xe4]

As someone who completely despises circumsician, I'll take this with a rather large grain of salt. I'll need to see more studies done before I accept this. I don't want to see myself supporting another Andrew Wakefield.

Edit: Oh there were other studies, and it looks like the correlation is statistically significant, but I wonder what the cause is? I'm assuming its pain at an infantile age, but that's only because the study suggested that. Perhaps another study could compare completely drug free Circumcision with Anesthetized circumcision?

 

[Kinitari]

For this type of association, if the lower limit in the confidence interval is above 1, then the difference is significant. The higher the hazard ratio, the stronger the difference. You'll see that many confidence intervals in the study (for hyperactivity disorder and asthma, for example) the lower limits were less than 1, or even negative. That means the hazard ratio was not significant. But also importantly, the smaller the range within a significant confidence interval, the more "believable" the HR. That's why the HR of 1.54 in Muslim 0-4 group is probably closer to the "truth" than the HR of 4.23 in the non-Muslim 0-4 group. Interestingly, the lower limit CI of the non-Muslim group was still 1.90, higher than the Muslim group. HR of 1 is the "baseline" risk, the control group risk.

The CI of the non-Muslim group isn't as tight as the CI of the Muslim group. That's because the Muslim group had more circumcision+autism cases (28 versus 6). More available data, generally the better the analysis.

Got ya - so in general, pretty sound data when looking specifically at Muslim children, but not quite as good when looking at non-Muslim children - which might be why it was commented on. Does that affect the overall quality of the study? I mean I guess you can just compare the Muslim kids against the national average, but with them being a minority and the potential for other cultural compounding factors, it seems like it would be difficult to pull too much data from that - but I need to reiterate that I am more asking then telling, I really don't know but would like to.

I guess if this study is reproduced, it needs to be done somewhere with more diversity and circumcision.

Edit: Or I guess little to no diversity but lots of circumcision (ie, study that looks at caucasians born in the US with a family there for 2+ generations)

edit2: I just realized 2 things - the Muslims who are being circumcised are being compared against the Muslims who are -not- circumcised, which should account for cultural issues except - realization 2 - apparently I read that Muslims who were not circumcised in a clinical setting are put in the 'intact' group automatically.

 

[Bigfoot]

I'm against circumcision of babies without a medical reason, but if this was true, wouldn't autism be much higher in Muslim countries and the USA compared to the rest of the World?

Edit: Guess this is already being discussed.

 

[Flo_Evans]

The "too complicated" often strangely comes from mothers/parent worried about keeping it clean. Most are surprised to learn you are actually not supposed to pull it back at an early age.

People in the U.S. are generally ignorant about foreskin and what cutting it off entails.

 

[Hoo-doo]

If you're going to spout your opinion on something like this, the least you can do is actually learn how to read, analyze and interpret scientific literature before making complete fools out of yourselves just because you don't agree with the results.

It's almost sad to read sometimes.

 

[Durask]

What is the link? It is just a piece of skin.

Childhood trauma?

Well, it covers the brain so ....

 

[GameGuru59]

Your hair serves no purpose when you can wear clothing such as a hat but you probably aren't cutting it all off even though it complicates the washing process. Oh dear I have to use a different kind of soap and maybe even a conditioner thats complex and complicated. It isn't and you are being disingenuous.

Actually, I do cut my hair short for that very reason. So from my perspective it's not disengenuous at all. I recently started cutting my pubic hair too because a girl I was dating told me it was just easier to deal with on a day to day basis. It is. I feel much more comfortable with shaved pubes. Conveinence is a big factor for me.

That being said, I'm seriously considering just encouraging my kid to do it once he turns 8 or whenever he's able to pull the foreskin back. That shit sounds fucking brutal for kids. I always thought the foreskin could be pulled back at any age.

 

[giga-ganon]

i seriously don't understand how so many people don't think it's a big deal.... I don't care if the baby doesn't remember it later, he still feel huge pain at the moment, and that's not cool at all!

Can you do anything you want to a baby with the excuse that he'll not remember it? I want my baby to look like a lizard, i'll cut his tongue in half, no big deal, he will not remember it!

If an adult want to circumcise himself, no problem, it's his choice! But for the baby.... not at all

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Actually, I do cut my hair short for that very reason. So from my perspective it's not disengenuous at all. I recently started cutting my pubic hair too because a girl I was dating told me it was just easier to deal with on a day to day basis. It is, I feel much more comfortable with shaved pubes. Conveinence is a big factor for me.

Not convenient does not equal complex. Getting up and going to cross the room to turn on a tv is not convenient. It is also not at all complex. I'm sad that you would put your convenience over your child's pain.

 

[GameGuru59]

Not convenient does not equal complex. Getting up and going to cross the room to turn on a tv is not convenient. It is also not at all complex. I'm sad that you would put your convenience over your child's pain.

If you put an extra step in a process, that process becomes more complex. Also, see the edit. I'm considering just waiting now until the theoretical kid's older to do it. You win I guess.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Yeahhhhh, this correlation seems quite suspect to me.
For example in North America circumcision was very common through the 50s-80s, then a decline began during the 90s; Yet autism rates have been on the rise from the 90s forward.

Source:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/u-s-and-canadian-autism-rates-on-the-rise-studies-show-1.1749020
http://m.livescience.com/39081-us-circumcision-rate-drops.html

 

[dan2026]

Never understood circumcision.

How could you knowingly mutilate your child's genitals?
Makes me feel kinda ill.

 

[FrozenCell]

Never understood circumcision.

How could you knowingly mutilate your child's genitals?
Makes me feel kinda ill.

mutilating children... sounds like a legacy of developing nations

 

[OminoMichelin]

Yeahhhhh, this correlation seems quite suspect to me.
For example in North America circumcision was very common through the 50s-80s, then a decline began during the 90s; Yet autism rates have been on the rise from the 90s forward.

Source:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/u-s-and-canadian-autism-rates-on-the-rise-studies-show-1.1749020
http://m.livescience.com/39081-us-circumcision-rate-drops.html

As it is being state in the second article, the increase is mostly due to better detection rates

 

[Shredderi]

Men don't want to be viewed as any lesser than other men. So people who are cut will reinforce positive beliefs and studies about circumcision and uncut people will do the same. It's a cultural thing. People saying that foreskin looks nasty say that because they live in a country where a lot of men are circumcised and therefore not being circumcised is considered different and therefore bad. We are born with the foreskin attached. If no one practiced circumcision anywhere then how many would be saying how ugly the foreskin looks like? Both sides of the argument reads like an ego thing: just gotta have a leg up somehow on some people in the world. If you differ somehow from some other group of people then of course we all want our differences be viewed as somehow better. If I was circumcised and then some study comes along that makes my dick seem inferior in any small (heh) way then that would seem pretty damning to me as I'm never getting that skin back. I wouldn't want to believe that. At least uncut people could still get circumcised if circumcision was suddenly proved universally by an irrefutable authority to be the better option.

It's ok. It's OK. While there is the ethical side of the argument, just talking about the aesthetic side of things, circumcised men look just fine, just different from uncut men. If you are circumcised and fine with that, then there is no problem for you. Circumcised dicks don't look ugly. No need to go into panic mode and try to diss on the foreskin in order to make your penis seem equal or better.

 

[Massingberd]

Actually, I do cut my hair short for that very reason. So from my perspective it's not disengenuous at all. I recently started cutting my pubic hair too because a girl I was dating told me it was just easier to deal with on a day to day basis. It is. I feel much more comfortable with shaved pubes. Conveinence is a big factor for me.

That being said, I'm seriously considering just encouraging my kid to do it once he turns 8 or whenever he's able to pull the foreskin back. That shit sounds fucking brutal for kids. I always thought the foreskin could be pulled back at any age.

OK, I'll put this out there - I was cut at around 8 and it is to this day the most excruciating pain I have ever had in my life by some distance. It took many years before I had the courage to ask my parents why it was done, and it was for a perfectly good medical reason which is fine. But to have no choice in the matter still chokes a bit, and if you are going to do that for purely your (and/or your wife's) aesthetic choice is a very serious decision. If they had told me it was purely because they thought it looked better, I'd shudder to think of the sheer resentment that would leave.

Once your kid is of legal age, of course, he can do what he likes. He doesn't like how it looks - fine, go and have it done. But to do it just because you like it is literally no better than strapping him down and having him tattooed in a very private area purely because it looks good. It really shouldn't be up to you do decide what his genitals look like - whether he appreciates that later in life or not is frankly irrelevant.

So yeah, pain and consent.

 

[PSYGN]

Whatever to make yourself feel better.

 

[dan2026]

The point is it should ALWAYS be a choice for the man when he is old enough to make that choice.

Unesscessary medical procedures done to unconcenting childten is barbaric and frankly disgusting.

 

[GameGuru59]

OK, I'll put this out there - I was cut at around 8 and it is to this day the most excruciating pain I have ever had in my life my some distance. It took many years before I had the courage to ask my parents why it was done, and it was for a perfectly good medical reason which is fine. But to have no choice in the matter still chokes a bit, and if you are going to do that for purely your (and/or your wife's) aesthetic choice is a very serious decision. If they had told me it was purely because of how they thought it would look, I'd shudder to think of the sheer resentment that would leave.

Once your kid is of legal age, of course, he can do what he likes. He doesn't like how it looks - fine, go and have it done. But to do it just because you like it is literally no better than strapping him down and having him tattooed in a very private area purely because it looks good. It really shouldn't be up to you do decide what his genitals look like - whether he appreciates that later in life or not is frankly irrelevant.

So yeah, pain and consent.

Nah, I mean I would ask the kid if he wanted it done, starting when he was 8. We would elect to pay for the procedure until he turned 18, after which he would pay for it on his own. Se he could get it done starting at 8, and defer with us electing to pay for it until 18.

Can I ask how long it was painful? Didn't they sedate you?

 

[nitekrawlwer]

If you put an extra step in a process, that process becomes more complex. Also, see the edit. I'm considering just waiting now until the theoretical kid's older to do it. You win I guess.

My goal is not to win. I'm sorry you see it that way. My goal was to show you that washing your foreskin is only an EXTRA step or more complex process to you because you have never dealt with it. For more people you just skip a step as foreskin is the male standard according to nature and most secular nations. Being familiar with the proccess I can assure that it doesn't even add a whole second to washing your body.

I may have gotten confrontational in tone and I apologize for that. It was not my intention to make it seem as if this were a competition and my goal was to win. I'm just shocked that something that literally adds next to no time to my bathing process described as complex or complicated. Even more shocked that it is justification for infant suffering. I should have kept those emotions in check when posting.

 

[Massingberd]

Nah, I mean I would ask the kid if he wanted it done, starting when he was 8. We would elect to pay for the procedure until he turned 18, after which he would pay for it on his own. Se he could get it done starting at 8, and defer with us electing to pay for it until 18.

OK. But I really can't see how that's a decision a kid could make for himself. Even if it was, cutting a bit of his own willy off must seem like insanity.

Can I ask how long it was painful? Didn't they sedate you?

Yes, but the pain hits when waking up after the operation. There's no protection from it, both physically and mentally.

 

[akira28]

what is it with the internet and tipping/circumcision threads? I swear it's like a phenomenon.

 

[Game-Biz]

Sounds like complete bullshit. But I'll try to keep an open mind.

 

[Loofy]

This study disturbs me. No not about about the circumcision specifically but now Ill freak out if a baby cries for too long since apparently that could be neuro trauma or something.

OK, I'll put this out there - I was cut at around 8 and it is to this day the most excruciating pain I have ever had in my life by some distance. It took many years before I had the courage to ask my parents why it was done, and it was for a perfectly good medical reason which is fine. But to have no choice in the matter still chokes a bit, and if you are going to do that for purely your (and/or your wife's) aesthetic choice is a very serious decision. If they had told me it was purely because they thought it looked better, I'd shudder to think of the sheer resentment that would leave.

Once your kid is of legal age, of course, he can do what he likes. He doesn't like how it looks - fine, go and have it done. But to do it just because you like it is literally no better than strapping him down and having him tattooed in a very private area purely because it looks good. It really shouldn't be up to you do decide what his genitals look like - whether he appreciates that later in life or not is frankly irrelevant.

So yeah, pain and consent.

I had it done around the same age too and I agree, which is why I think kids should get it when theyre babies. It'd be even harder as an adult taking time off work to get something that could have been done when you were a child.

 

[Aesius]

what is it with the internet and tipping/circumcision threads? I swear it's like a phenomenon.

Both sides are incredibly defensive of their own situations or stances on the issues. Leads to never-ending debates.

 

[genjiZERO]

bwahaha that can't be true. Still circumcision is for savages.