Amazon.com Widgets
  • Circumcised penises are cleaner, healthier, and cute!

    My two sons were circumcised at birth. They tolerated the procedure extremely well and we are pleased with the result for the improved hygiene. I think circumcised penises are more attractive and would never accept an uncircumcised male for intimate relations. (I know that sounds shallow to some, but it is my personal preference, full stop.) Baby boys are very resilient and they have no memory of the pain of their circumcisions.

  • Yes - because every male should be able to enjoy the benefits of circumcision.

    One of the main benefits is the permanent exposure of the glans. This reduces the over-sensitivity of the glans and enables the man to control the sensations when the glans is stimulated during intercourse or masturbation. This means that the sexual experience of the circumsied man is more intense and pleasurable than that of the uncircumcised.

  • Infant boys should be circumcised, if the parents choose to do so, because there are valid reasons to go either way.

    You can look at the pros and cons of circumcising a boy, and can actually justify that circumcising an infant boy is good, while also justifying that circumcising an infant boy is bad. Only the parents know if this is something that is right for them, and the parents should have the right to decide on this.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • clearly cleaner and more attractive

    Personal experience leads to conclusion that circumcised men are more desired and men uncut lack the advantage of the cut and regret that they were left off the circ list in the newborn nursery. My sons are unanimous in being gratefull that they have been circumcised. All my grandsons have been cut.

  • If the parents decide to, than Yes.

    If you want to see actual data & studies, as opposed to just opinions. I've done 2 debates on the matter. . This one is shorter: I just put out my arguments & my opponent gave up : http://www.debate. org/debates/To-circumcise-or-not/1/

    .

    This one is longer, I presented my arguments, there was a bit of back & forth, untill my opponent Forfited. http://www.debate.org/debates/Parent-elective-circumcision-of-offspring-is-ethically-unacceptable/2/


    As far as waiting until the child can make their own decisions, there are 2 problems, there are 2 issues: a) under-age sex is very common. It is precisely at this age when circumcision is most vital as they are more pron to having careless unprotected sex.
    they are sexually active and risk-taking is part of their psyche. Also with regard cancer, children are susceptible to cancer as well, waiting until they are old enough may be too late.
    b) Circumcisions performed later in life have a higher risk of complication and are more painful; dangerous, more uncomfortable, inconvenient and painful, etc. .

  • It is more sanitary and better looking.

    Research has shown that circumcision allows boys to be cleaner, without as much upkeep. As a woman, I would rather be with a man who is circumcised than uncircumcised. The penis isn't a very attractive organ to begin with and uncircumcised penises are frankly a little disgusting. If I were to have a son, I would have him circumcised.

    Posted by: R4v4g3rJohn
  • Circumcision does not have negative long term affects.

    When my son was born, my husband and I didn't hesitate to have our son circumcised. We understood the cultural beliefs but we also knew that we didn't want to have problems with the foreskin later and have our son suffer a dysfunction. Little boys are not known to be the cleanest and if you don't clean under the foreskin everyday, there can be infections. As they get older, there are more negatives than positives.

    Posted by: ladiil0caz
  • Circumcision is completed prior to the age where babies can remember pain and therefore, should be done when they are babies and not later in life.

    Studies have shown that foreskin becomes problematic later in life as dirt and water can accumulate under the folds. If the skin is removed when the child is an infant, he will not remember the incident, and it will allow for a clean private area later in life. Should he decide that he want to be circumcised later, the pain will be excruciating. It is best to do when the child is young.

    Posted by: ElainaP
  • Yes, overall, it's a good idea.

    Circumcision is not a bad idea. It makes life easier for the man who receives one. It's easier for him to properly clean his male part, which reduces the possibility of infections. And, it may help reduce the incidence of penis cancer - although, this is a rare occurrence. Also, circumcision might have a small reducing effect on the male's contraction of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • Please circumcise

    It is clearly a healthy practice to circumcise males and if done in infancy there is no trauma and healing is very quick.
    Cervical cancer and HIV prevention are high on the agenda these days and circumcision is a good way in reduction of these serious conditions.

  • It's unnecessary

    Why put your son through the pain? "Because he wont remember", that's not a good enough reason. have you seen the videos?! They give them sugar to "calm them down" but they are in so much pain they can't even eat the sugar, and after when they bring them back and they show you how to change them and they are still screaming in pain. I don't understand how adults can watch the videos of it happening and still say they will do it. You say it's cleaner to get circumcised but even if you cut off the whole penis men still have the risk of infections down there. A lot of women say they get it done for their sons because it looks better, why do you care what your son's penis looks like? That's disturbing and sick! You can stay clean without being circumcised.

  • The bottom line is that circumcision is genital mutilation, and no one would allow a baby girl's genitals to be cut.

    Perhaps the only exemption to circumcision is for religious reasons, and every parent must do what they think is best. However, there is no medical basis for circumcision that is not anecdotal. Circumcision is genital mutilation and is considered horrific when it happens to girls and women. So, why would one condone it for infant boys?

    Posted by: NimbleGreg
  • Circumcision has lot of negative long term affects.

    Infant circumcision does NOT prevent UTI or any other infections. It's quite opposite, circumcised penis is more prone to infections and this is a studied fact.

    Circumcision increases a risk for erectile dysfunction at older age.

    Penis needs to cleaned properly everyday regardless if you are intact or cut. Cleaning an intact penis is not any harder than cleaning a cut penis.

    There is NO reason to automatically circumcise all boys.

  • I disagree that all infant boys should automatically be circumcised.

    It is a cosmetic procedure, not something that benefits the infant or is proved to prevent disease. A long time ago when we didn't have running water circumcision may have been useful. Today we understand the importance of meticulous hygiene and practice it with the aid of indoor plumbing. If a woman can keep her genitals clean with all the nooks and crannies she has, not to mention secretions and blood, then a man can certainly pull back a foreskin and wash his penis.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • Worried about hygiene? Teach them how to bathe!

    The most popular argument I see from ignorant parents is that they believe in circumcision for "hygienic" reasons. This is a ludicrous and invalid argument as hygiene is the act of cleanliness. Once the foreskin releases from the glans penis (head), the foreskin can easily be retracted and cleaned thoroughly to prevent any bacteria from entering the urethra. It has also been scientifically proven that newly produced smegma acts as an anti-bacterial substance. It is only when the smegma has become old and laden with bacteria that complications may arise. Women are also subjected to the same substance and we seem to handle cleaning our parts just fine. Why don't we trust our males to do the same? Teach them to clean their parts and there will be as much a chance of infection as any other penis, circumcised or not.

  • I think circumcision is unnecessary for medical reasons.

    In most countries it is not a routine procedure to circumcise all baby boys. I find the idea of cutting parts off people for cosmetic reasons or dubious theories about hygiene unpleasant. Especially if the parents are not given any choice in the matter.

    Posted by: R0thFerdy
  • Infant boys should not be circumcised unless it is a purely medical procedure.

    Nobody morally has the right to circumcise a child. It is a practice, that in this day and age is disgraceful. It serves no purpose unless it is a medical requirement to improve the child's health. Any type of circumcision in the name of religion, is indoctrination and serves the parent's religious face, more than it ever does, the child. If someone chooses to be circumcised, that is a different matter; let them be of sound enough mind and a mature enough age to make such a decision. Circumcising a baby is taking away that child right to choose whether to have it done or not.

    Posted by: MentM4j3r3
  • I think it should still be parent choice but not the rule or even the socially acceptable norm.

    Since the origins of the custom are mostly cultural and religious, without sound scientific or health basis, this custom should not be the social norm. Yes, there are some health benefits (less infection) but that benefit is offset by loss of sensitivity. If it were possible to delay the procedure until the young man could choose for himself, that might be the best choice.

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • It is my belief that there should be no compulsion to circumcise infant boys.

    Circumcising infant boys may have religious ties, however if it is not required by one's religion I think that it is unnecessary to put an infant through the unnecessary pain and expose the child to potential risks for no reason at all. Unnecessary surgical procedures should be avoided.

    There is always a possibility that too much of the foreskin may be cut along with some erogenous tissue. Studies have shown circumcised males are more likely to indulge in various sexual practices. Circumcision can result in thickening and desensitization of the glans. Women having intercourse with circumcised men were also shown to have greater incidence of vaginal dryness.

    Posted by: babyblu4u
  • I strongly oppose circumcising kids because of the pain they are suffer.

    There can be even death if it is not done properly. It's not humane to make children undergo this. It's better to ask them to do it when they are at least 10 years old. In my point of view, it is the intrusion into the personal freedom of one when they are unable to make a decision.

    Posted by: R0ckRandi

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.