Your absolute right Winnie, that parents need to decide for themselves. As Joel was using the religious angle, I felt it was my duty as a christian to explain the christian stance rather than allow him to tell the evolutionist view of christianity and circumsion.

I do hope ppl respect my stance and beliefs and not attack what I have said. I welcome debate on faith but I will not respond if I'm attacked.

I hope ppl get a better understanding of christainity and what we believe.

Cheers Raven

PS I hope I don't come across fanatical!!!!! It wasn't my intention......Just want to educated!

Thankyou Rukia.

Obviously hypospadias is a very specialized case. It isn't a problem with the foreskin, but rather a problem that happened during development in which the urethral opening developed in a spot that made it difficult to urinate, etc.. Obviously in situations such as these, it is a much different situation than parent's choosing the procedure on perfectly healthy infants in order to 'protect them' from their foreskins.

I don't think that it is ideal that your son was circumcised, but it was the best solution available because of his condition. I hope they will develop a method for correcting hypospadias that doesn't require circumcision (currently they use the foreskin to fix the problem).

And, yes, I joined to comment on this article, that doesn't mean I will never post again. Everyone joins to post on some article, I don't see why that means I should be reported.

In my son's case it would not have mattered even ifthey could have spared his foreskin. Even the foreskin was REALLY malformed. He did NOT look normal "down there" at all. It was clearly obvious that he needed to have some repair wokr done down there.

So, even if they develop the means to save the foreskin, there will still be children who need it done medically.

That all said, Jedd would have been done regardless. I know lots of people who say the trend now in the U.S. is to NOT circ. But I can tell you at least 99% of the male diapers I change in the nursery at church are cur. boys.

I too agree that maybe you should write pieces of advice on this subject. I think you would reach more of an audience that way and be able to show that you are not just  here to harp on this one advice article.

I must admit, the "tone" of your comments is much better today than it was the other day. Thank you for that.

Here at Minti we all try to discuss things in a civilized manner. We aren't all going to agree but we can all have our say on touchy topics like this one.

Jessica

Joel - This is Lisa's experience with her own personal decision and choice as a mother. This isn't an invitation for a great "to circumcise or not to circumcise" debate nor is it an invitation for you to bring your other buddies from whatever website you came from to begin with to pester her about the decision she made. Go back to the website you came from, take your little buddies with you and by the way making multiple accounts is against minti's code of honor. Agree to disagree and disappear to post something constructive.

Mystikal,

Please, do not talk to me in that tone. I am not 'from a website' and this is not something I have 'brought my buddies' anywhere to discuss. If you were to actually read my replies, you'd see that I was not 'pestering her about her decision'. I have not made more than this account, and I am sure Minti.com has ways of checking for that, but to throw an accusation like that out to try to discredit what I am saying is trashy. I get that you're trying to stand up for Lisa, but come on. This website is people to share their views, and that is what I did.

The reason why I don't subscribe to the 'let everyone do what they want to do' thing in this situation is that we're not talking about a decision that only affects the life of the decision-maker. This is a permanent, painful procedure that DOES affect every young male who undergoes the procedure. You don't OWN your son's body parts, so if its not medically necessary, then why SHOULD it be your right to have it removed for any reason you so choose?

Lets keep in mind that no healthy part of a baby girl can be cut off for non-medical reasons in this country (thankfully).. not even for religious reasons of the parents.. and I do not understand why it is easy for us all to understand this for girls.. but think genital cutting justified when we mention the infant is a boy.

Joel

Please be aware that this is a multi cultural site, what you have posted is offensive. The parents are the LEGAL GARDIANS of their child and can do according to the law what they deem fit for THEIR son. What gives you the right to tell the parents that they are wrong? What makes this practice wrong? Is it because religion offends you or is it because you can't take ppl voicing their own opinions? Are you so arrogant that stand in judgement of others, if so, then so shall you be judged.

You could not go in an Arab country and preach what you just did, you would be tossed in  jail for it. You must not only be culturally sensitive to ppl but also religious sensitive to others.

If this practice is so offensive to you, write your own article, but don't trash other members because of their experience. Lisa made a very good point........IF SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH YOUR CHILD, FIGHT TO GET FIXED!!!!!

Raven

Post your own advice article about circumsision with your thoughts. You will inform more users than your petty argumentative comments here. Which by the way, admin are aware of.

I really can't believe that an article I wrote quite a while ago about a subject which was very private and personal to me and my family, has had so much response! I wrote this advice based on our familys' experience hoping to help others in our situation.

The emails I have received in the last few days regarding posts made by members has turned into a slanging match.

For the record I HAVE NOT reported ANY member to Minti admin and do not intend to do so.But, I am disappointed that a site which provided me for a long time with friendship and courtesy is now quite the opposite.

What a shame.

Hun, take some time out.  I know you are feeling overwhelmed by all the comments, so take some breathing space, absorb what your article has attracted, and be proud that your article has attracted so many comments, we should all be so lucky.

Debates are about getting opinions acrossed, and if I weren't so brain tied, I'd read every single comment completely, and join in even more.

Minti has changed, or should I say evolved, but that happens in any community.  You have your constants, your occassionals, your newbies and your one offs.  All are required to make a community like minti function.

Sharing personal stories does leave us vulnerable to unfavourable comments, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't share our stories, it serves to show us that we do have the ability to make parents use their grey matter, which is very important you know.

...also, to clear up any misconceptions, I was intending to refer to the doctor's actions as morally reprehensible. I also was not intending to call the original poster irresponsible, but rather, that the post itself made a leap from 'my son had a problem, and we ended up circumcising him' to implying that all children should be circumcised to prevent such a situation. This leap I found irresponsible, because readers internalize the message 'the foreskin is problematic' when reality shows this just is not the case. The real problem here was poor advice by a physician.

You have really pissed me off.Lets hope you never have a child in agony because he can't even pee-and yeah-bloody well report me you ignorant , unfeeling, insensitive idiot -cos i don't care

See, I think that was unfair of you to say. I have no interest in reporting you, but I do want to apologize for offending you.

I understand that the situation you went through was not easy, but circumcising a healthy infant just in case is not the appropriate way to avoid the situation in the future. It might seem mean of me to say that, but its just a fact that you don't perform painful, permanent, reductive surgery on healthy babies because of a bad experience in the past.

I also was not blaming you for what happened, how could I? There was no way for you to know that your doctor was not well educated on care of a newborn that was not circumcised. My point was that there are other, less invasive solutions, and even in the worst-case situation, a full circumcision is never necessary to solve a tight foreskin. It just never is. period. This is not an attack against you as a parent, I promise. It is simply a fact.

I am sorry that I am not better at more delicately presenting this information, and I honestly do not have ill-intentions, and my intention is CERTAINLY not to make anyone feel guilty for what has happened in the past. What possible reason would I have to do that? My goal is very simple... to get rid of the myths that cause new mothers to make this choice for their children. To make it clear that the foreskin is healthy, sensitive, functional, erogenous genital tissue - not a birth defect. If we cut off every body part that could ever have a problem we'd have no body parts left!

So, I am sorry. I see that I hurt many people's feelings, and I wish I could undo that, while still getting my message across. I hope that you, and other members of minti can find it in their hearts to forgive me.

You clearly don't understand the debate....You are debating a RELIGIOUS

debate not a medical debate. So has a christian let me set you straight.

God told Abraham to circumscize himself and his household including his slaves. This was in keeping with Gods promises of making his descendents a great nation. Genesis chapter 17

Lets skip head to the new testament; Jesus comes, preaches the new way, is crucified and rose again on the third day (just for the religiously challenged!) All those who followed His way gathered and pentecoste happened (the indwelling of his God's spirit in us) for the first christians. I made a slight mistake in my earlier post it was Peter not Paul in Acts chapter 11 (read it for yourself) who after meeting with the other elders, decided that God indeed ment for the Gentiles to be saved and just because they weren't circumized didn't mean they were forever doomed if they weren't circumized. At that point in the religious christian history of circumscion became a choice of conscience .

 It must also be noted that Arabs also remain under Abrahams convenant of circumscion thru Abrahams first born son Ishmael, who's mother was Haggai, Sarah, Abrahams wifes slave girl, whom he took as a "wife". As Issac was Abrahams first wife, her child recieved the inheritance of his father over his older brother. Ishmael and his Mother Haggai were sent away with very little inheritance because of this, thus causing the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews. Not that this has anything to do with the debate but it is all interesting anyway.

So before you all go shooting your mouths off and insulting each other........get all the facts. You are all debating a religious view not a medical view. Politics and certian parts of society are doing there very best to murder any religious views or stance in society. They are slowly killing of our sense of morals and dragging everybody into conscience debates so we don't see what they are actually doing, making us accept certain view points like euthansia and abortion. Lets focus on the real issues here and not get caught up on a personal choice ppl.

Cheers Raven

I am well aware of the medical and religious sides of the debate. I don't think the religious side is entirely relevant to this discussion, because the original post was promoting the practice on medical grounds.

Nevertheless, the New Testament makes it very clear that the covenant does not apply to those who follow Christ. Considering that the Jewish population makes up a very small percent of the American population, I think its fairly clear that the high rates of circumcision in America are not done because of the Jewish covenant. Nevertheless, I do feel religious should be a personal choice, which means, ultimately, I feel circumcision only makes sense in a religious sense, if it is a choice an individual makes about their own bodies. After studying Anthropology for a number of years, I feel this same logic is what ultimately stopped foot binding, and is the motivation behind stopping many other painful practices performed on young children.

Foot binding has nothing to do with circumscion and all though it is a cruel practice adds nothing to this debate. You'd be suprised how many Jews live in the US. Just because their last names aren't Jewish doesn't make them dissappear.

The religious debate of this issue is relevant as it is a reason for the practice. Have you studied religion? Do you regularly attend a service? Do you understand the relevance of religion in our society? Anthroplogical study is only a partial study of human's and does not include any formal recognition of religion and it's impact on ppl. Everyone believes in something even athesists have beliefs (they believe there is no god and we just exist). Anthropological studies centre on the early man on evolutionary theories. The practice of circumscion can be traced back to Abraham thru 2 main sources as I mentioned, the Arab ppl and the Jewish ppl. Both have written documentation to support the claims. I have the privilege to sit under the teachings of pastor who has PHD's in these fields, which is where I am drawing from. Both the Koran and the Bible back this up, if you don't believe it research it yourself.

As for the Jewish population being small we all know who is responsible for that. Had it not been for that the Jewish population would be far greater. You also forget that it is practiced by the Catholics, which I happen to know have a large population in this world and is found in most countries including the USA.

By your logic, we should not pierce ears, tongues and other body parts. We should not under go any form of plastic surgery or even under go dental surgery. Your logic dictates that if it causes pain or discomfort for small period time then it should not be done. (Yes, very Vulcan of me!) However, as I said this is a matter of conscience on behalf of the parents.

I'd like to point out that you are double minded in your response, in one sentence you say it is personal choice but then go on say that ultimately the practice should be stopped. So I ask are against the practice or are for a conscience choice?

The article was not written to promote circumscion on medical grounds but illistrated are valuable lesson, that if something isn't right with your child fight until it is made right. It just so happens that Lisa's fight was to have her son's foreskin removed, for what i consider to be appropiate medical reasons. Some ballooning is normal but over or hyper extended ballooning is not.

I'd also like to add this site is multi cultural and sensitivity to others is a must specially when dealing with sensitive issue such as this. Your comments could be seen as cultural insensitive.......,good thing I'm what the call an apentecostal Christian, because if I were catholic.........well I won't go there!!!!!!

Raven

The reason I compared foot binding and circumcision is because both are performed on children for 'tradition'. I would have no problem with an adult choosing to bind their own feet, or circumcise themselves. The only reason I take part in this discussion is because I do not feel agree with the logic that a parent is free to make any choice for their children that they wish. Religion does not justify a VERY WIDE range of rites and rituals around the world - they are illegal in this country even though we are multi-cultural, because we believe all human beings are born with certain unalienable rights. Children are individuals, not property of their parents.

That said, I understand the history of circumcision, and the incredible pressure and motivation of both Jews and Muslims to continue the practice on their children. I have explored these issues outside of the anthropological spectrum, and I certainly respect an individuals right to practice their religion. So, you wonder why I say "personal choice" in the same breath as I say infant circumcision should not be practiced... the reason is that I feel the decision to remove healthy, sensitive, functional, erogenous genital tissue is a decision an individual should make about their own body, and it is no one's right to take that away from you without your consent. it is YOUR body, so you should have the final say.

My point in mentioning that the Jewish population was small in America was not to discredit their reasoning, but simply to point out that the majority of circumcisions done in America are not done by Jewish people. In fact, polls have shown the most common reason for circumcision to be performed in America is "to make the baby look like daddy". In other words, its about the looks. To me, I think even if we disagree about the religious aspect, we should be able to agree that this is not an acceptable reason to cut off valuable genital tissue from a minor who cannot say no, and will go the rest of their life without a foreskin. The part cut off contains thousands upon thousands of nerve endings similar to those found in the fingertips and lips, and even the palms of the hands. This tissue has several documented functions, and really, there is no reason for it to be constantly de-valued.

Also, Catholics do not traditionally circumcise. They don't in other countries around the world, and until it became common for non-religious reasons in America, no Catholics would perform it. I believe it was in the 1400s when the Pope of the time condemned the practice. I can find the resource on that, if you are interested.

In the case of extended ballooning, there are less severe methods of solving the problem. At the absolute most extreme, a dorsal slit would completely solve the problem - a procedure which would not remove any tissue. Far more likely though, a steroid cream and stretching exercises would make the opening wide enough.

I do like the message that you illustrated: Fight for your child, to make sure they receive adequate care! I just believe a less extreme solution could have been found - and this is honestly not a critique of the original poster, but of the medical establishment that failed to utilize these less extreme strategies. Unfortunately this is a regular occurrence in America, and thus my frustration.

Again you do not understand the religious tradition of circumsion....It is a promise or rather a convenant between God and man, in this case Abraham, who by setting himself apart thru circumsion, would inherit the promise God made. This promise would be passed on from father to son, thru the action of circumsion as was the tradition of the day. The circumsized son's would inherit the promises made by God......which we can clearly see they did. They became a prosperous ppl in large numbers. This is why the Arab ppl are so wealthy......they held on to God's promise. The Jewish ppl however didn't always hold on to the promise and they suffered for it. (Circumsion was ment to be a reminder of the promise God made to Abraham, how quickly we forget what a loving God he is!)

You can not infuse evolutionary theories into biblical principles.....they are 2 different sides of a coin and completely opposite to one another. If and as you have stated are an evolutionist....then this tradition is reprehensible to you. Evolutionists believe in the rights of every individual on their own merit reguardless of age or sex, that humans are basically intellectual animals who care for their young alot longer than animals. In biblical principles children "belong" to their parents and we as ppl are set apart from the animal kingdom to rule over it (to care and nuture it). It is the parents responsibility to raise and nuture their children with the morals and standards that God set forth in the garden when He kicked Adam and Eve out. (remember there was 1 law.....do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowlege of good and evil)

Here lies the fundmental difference between evolution and christianity.............Evolutionist believe that they know and can decided the difference between good and evil.......Christians and Muslims rely on Gods standard of good and evil. Two very different standards. It must also be noted that evolutionist live by many of God's standards of right and wrong.

So with that mind.....what standard do you determine that removing a small amount of skin to honor a promise or a convenant between a man, his son and their God as wrong? Keep mind that when you accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, you become a child of God, with all the privileges and inheritance that come with it, just as the Jewish ppl have and remember that Peter in Acts stated that it was conscience choice for the Gentiles (meaning ppl not of Jewish descent) to under go the procedure.

I am not talking about religion, but am talking about a relationship with an entity that is far greater then you and I and has on numerous occasions SAVED my life! I have seen and felt him in my own life, I can give many accounts of His presence. I am not talking about hearing "voices" but I have actually met with an angel who was a guest in our home for 1 nite.

I do not believe in religion, religion has killed more ppl then it's saved, but it is easier to discuss certain issues on a religious level, as you certainly wouldn't understand it on a spiritual level nor on a supernatural level.

We are not talking about superaficial procedure in order to look good and many christians won't reveal the real reason they have this procedure because this society hates what we believe. We are ridiculed and told we are socially frigid on many issues, that we should lighten up! I can tell right now your stastic's are wrong, most christains give their second reason not their first, many don't even reveal they believe in Jesus Christ.

Circumsion is not in the name of beauty (all tho there are those who do believe that) but for the promise that God Himself gave. If a father chooses to to honor God in this way........what gives you the right to judge him? To judge his faith? We do not judge your faith or your beliefs, yet you judge us to the standard of what I believe to be an evil world, full of superaficial traditions, greed and immorality.............all supported by the theory of evulotion........that man should do what is right in his own eyes.

The traditions you have compared circumsion to are all based on on lust and beauty. In Africa women are mutilated so they can't have sex, in China foot binding was done to prevent women from wandering to far from the family home. There is nothing in these traditions that provide freedom or blessing but another way to place women in bondage under men. Much like the Taliban preventing women from showing any part of the body from under veil and murding them if they did.

Christianity promotes a freedom and equality that is not shown in this world.......it is the reason that ppl are drawn to God......many particularly in western culture turn away because they enjoy deciding what is good and evil.

Raven

Blue-raven,

I did not ONCE say that I was an evolutionist. I am, in fact agnostic, which means I am neither a creationist or an evolutionist. I even believe it is possible that evolution and creation are just different methods of telling the same story.

I made my comments not as an evolutionist, but as a member of a multicultural society. I don't believe everyone should be subjected to Christian morality. A Christian's child has not accepted Jesus Christ at the time of his birth, and he should not have to be subjected to a painful and permanent surgery on his own genitals simply because of a belief of his parents.

I think it is a largely debatable claim that you made, saying that Jews suffered for not always circumcising, while Arab people are wealthy because they do circumcise. I also don't see how cutting off a part of your child's penis is a reminder of how loving God is.

I don't believe that Christians have a greater right to practice their religion than people of other religions have a right to practice theirs. You might believe it is your right to do anything that the bible says, but people who practice female genital cutting often believe it is their right to perform it on their daughters for religious reasons as well. We easily understand, though, that parent's do not have the right to do 'ANYTHING' to their children. There are many forms of abuse that we protect children against, we would also not allow parents to 'sacrifice' their children for God, even though Abraham was willing to do this to his child in the name of Faith. Religion is not a free-pass to cause harm to your children.

And also, please don't tell me that I don't understand the religious tradition of circumcision. I have studied this side of the debate for many years, and I grew up hearing it. I think that was an unfair claim on your part.

When you said that other similar traditions are done on the basis of greed and immorality, rather than for religious reasons, I really have to disagree with you. Some of the most horrific traditions around the world are done in the name of religion.

My problem is not with you practicing your religion in any capacity you want, it is ENTIRELY about how it is done onto a child, rather than onto yourself. I understand that this isn't the specific rule presented in the Bible, but the rights that every person is born with mean that it is unethical for a parent to inflict this harm onto their child. I think if the tradition was to murder your first born child, and it was written in the Bible, many followers would be trying to justify THAT practice. But the truth is that this is simply not the right of parent to make for their child. Parents are not allowed to cut ANY OTHER healthy body part from their child, so why the foreskin? Why is the foreskin fair game? You have not explained to me why our entire concept of morality is shifted just to justify this practice. For faith alone? Should our culture really justify harming children because of a parent's faith? Faith that God wants you to give your child a full-body tattoo?

I really don't think you can back up the claim that most circumcisions in America are done on the basis of Christianity. Before the 1800s, this was simply not a practice of Christians. In most parts of the world it is not done. There is a clearly documented history that clearly explains what popularized the practice. If Christians are circumcising their sons for religious reasons, I would argue it was because they had NOT read Galations 5, and the other times it is mentioned in the New Testament.

Woah there!!!!!

Firstly, I did not say that it was because Jewish ppl didn't circumsize they sufferred......clearly you have not read the bible because if you had you would have understood that they had to live to a certain standard.......ever heard of the 10 commandments, which  mite I add, our law is based on!!!!!!!

Secondly, i was not shoving religion or christianity down your throat but explaining the christian stance, for which you have taken offence, which I'm not suprised as agnostic's tend to be easily offended!!!! You are not the first agnostic and I love that word because it describes you perfectly a person who antagnosizes others!

Thirdly, you never answered my Q's.........What gives your the right to judge anothers faith or his actions on his faith in particularly to this issue. Considering that practice in the christian world does not demean men nor make them less in the eyes of the other sex!!!!!!!!

I am sorry your parents "disfigured" you but you have no right to take it out on others. It is you who are pushing your point of view rather then accepting that other ppl have different opinion. I simply explained the christain and partly the Arab point of view. I am not a member of Minti to bible bash others, it's not my way.

Take page out of Joey Trivannes book, from friends and have someone make one for you. There are plenty of plastic surgeons who would do it for you.

It is for this reason many christians choose not share their beliefs, because ppl like you tell them that are stupid and their high standard of morality is offensive. Let me tell you something YOUR LOW MORALITY IS OFFENSIVE TO ME.

We are community, we Do NOT separate our children and tell them they are not apart of our community, which is what you want. You view is to cause a divide between parents and children.........definately not cool!!!!!!! My children have choosen of their own freewill to follow God and our beliefs. I have not forced them nor coherced them into it.

You came on here to preach your beliefs, not share another point view, by the way, it's amazing that this is the only subject you have chosen to preach your beliefs. I'm all for healthy debate but you are clearly right and everyone else is wrong.......you must have a lonely life if this how you treat ppl.

If you really think that parents should not share their heritage let alone their beliefs and if you really believe that children should be kept separate from their parents and their beliefs then we have nothing else to discuss.

RAVEN

You were very unclear when you were explaining why the 'Arabs are wealthy' and the 'Jews suffered'. It looked as though you were saying that this was contingent upon their adherence to the rite of circumcision. The 10 commandments do not include a single mention of performing painful rituals on children. Though, I do notice the commandment of 'Do not steal'. I also find your accusation that I haven't read the Bible pretty immature. I have.

I didn't think you were shoving religion down my throat, but rather that you were proposing christian views should take precedence over the religious views of others. You believe your right as a Christian takes precedence over your child's right to not be one.

My reason for suggesting your faith does not justify the practice is simple: I believe an individuals right to their OWN BODY takes precedence over your right to do whatever you want to your children. This is why faith does not justify cutting off your child's toes, or removing your daughter's labia. If faith compells you to remove those parts of your own body, or the parts of an adult who understands the risks and consents too it, then I might think you are strange, but I would certainly not try to stop you. It seems to me that you hold absolutely zero respect for the value of the foreskin, and because of this, you feel that no individual should hold any entitlement to owning it themselves. What the opposite sex feels about the practice is of absolutely no relevance.

Your suggestion that I should craft a foreskin out of deli meats is not particularly humorous to me, but also completely irrelevant. I have circumcised friends and family, but I have not been 'disfigured' as you imply. Just as many women with intact genitalia stand up against female genital cutting, so do I feel compelled to stand up against male genital cutting, especially since it is so prevalent in our culture. I have the body part in question, and I understand its value. My foreskin belongs ONLY to me. That is the message I am trying to explain to others. My parent's religion is of absolutely no importance to me. I am glad they have religious views that make them happy, but they should never control how I live my life at this age. Circumcision, unlike church attendance, or other religious practices, is permanent. Men circumcised for their parent's religion can never undo it. I do not feel separated from my parents because they let me keep my foreskin, so I think that was a pretty strange claim to make on your part.

My point is not to antagonize, and I certainly am not trying to break the relationships between family, and I really do not believe my view is equal to low morality. I am not trying to 'take away parental rights', I am trying to 'give individuals back their rights', the same way we have done for girls and their bodies.

I honestly am sorry that my tone has seemed to offend or 'antagonize' you. I hope you can understand that, and try to hear what my real message is.

Take it to private message!

Arguing about who reported who and for what reason does not belong here, take it to personal message or simply agree to disagree and try contributing positively around the site.

Yet again-ignorance. If you read the artice properley, he was not a new born, he was in fact nearly 7 years old when he had it done.I also talked endlessly to him about his feelings about it and what the surgery would mean.He now has no problems whatsoever, and I will defend my decision to the hilt.

I was referring to the end of your article, in which you suggested that parents should have the surgery done as soon as possible because its easier to do it then. What I have been trying to explain is that this is not, in fact, good advice.

this is good advise to has it done at an early age than to wait until the child is five or six. It is up to the indevidual to have it done and it is a lot more hygenic. You prbably will not know but during one of the wars they made the men be curcum. because they were in the trenches and the tickes and bities would not have a place to hide this was very very painful at a later age This is why it is good to get it done at an early age I think this should be the end of this matter don't you we all are entitled to our own preferrence thank you     

Thanks sweetie, I sent her some mail earlier asking if she wanted me to report those accounts. Sounds like it might need to be done. :-(

 Probly never even had kids lol. Or never had a boy, Personaly I dont think it should be done (I dated a guy who had it done and said he never had good sencetivety during sex cause of it)

But if there is a medical reason then of course, no one should suffer!!!

When you get put in that situation its a lot different to just reading up on it :)

Take parenting in general for example, people who are not parents are experts! When the bub is born we must loose all that knowlage lol.

Depends on when he had it done as to the level of sensitivity, or how it was done as well.  The earlier in life circumcision is performed, the less damage there is to nerve endings.  My partner was done at birth, and has never had a problem with sex, though he can't stand to use condoms, which is interesting- says they feel as though they strangle more (though I'll strangle more one of these days if he isn't careful! lmao).

You could have stated  your feelings and the facts in a little bit of a better manner than this.

Also, I"ve written alot of medical advice per my son's issues and I always make sure to say that this is my opinion and hope it helps others.

So, if you are  doing that which I'm assuming you are, than state it. Don't state things as facts without links to support it.

You've only been on this site for an hour and already are getting very defensive about a touchy topic. We try to all say our piece and agree that all parents make the choices that are BEST for THEIR family.

Try to keep that in mind as you make comments on things.

I don't come on minti much any more basically because of the ignorance shown by some members like yourself.I just received email about your response and logged on to take a look.

The only 'ignorance' here is you.For your information I live in the UK not the USA for a start.My son suffered pain on a daily basis and on urination and was not able to clean the area properley and was therefore at risk of infection.

After numerous medical visits and advice I decided and so did my son to go ahead.

Do you think it is an easy decision to undertake to have your child put to sleep for an invasive operation? No it is not.Even though he was in pain after -and if you read my article properley you would have understood the circumstances , he is far better fo having the procedure.

Don't you dare tell me you ignorant ,insulting person that my son didn't show symptoms-how very condescending you are.

And by the way, now aged 11 he has no problems at all-get your facts right before bleeting on.

I'm soo sorry Lisa, it seems as if the other member is enlisting people to join just to post on your article. I'll send you a message.

Jessica

LoopyLisa I wasn't having a go at you, just some of the advice you were given. You didn't agree with some of the advice yourself.

From what I have read this is completely normal for an infant to have a very tight foreskin. See http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/faq.html
(and many other websites)

"So, I went to the doctors again and was told to pull the skin back for him when he was in the bath,apparently its supposed to help the skin move back-rubbish.All it did for J was to put him in more pain."

(I agree, what they told you was rubbish. Also it made things much worse.)

I have read that ballooning is normal and is not an indication for circumcision.
See http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/faq.html

In my opinion 'circumcision should be performed as early as possible' is a highly contentious view. There is book called 'Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma'by Ron Goldman. After reading this I came to the conclusion that the younger the worse.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/faq.html

QUES: Does my intact (not circumcised) son require any special hygiene or bathing?

ANS: Short answer: NO. The good news is that the intact boy requires NO special care whatsoever. He may be bathed exactly the same way as, and no more frequently than, his sister. In fact, vigorous or aggressive hygiene may damage natural emollients and substances that provide him protection against infection. For that reason, D.O.C. recommends against bubble baths or use of any but the mildest soap for either gender, and then only to the exterior genitalia. Warm water only, a tiny application of the very mildest soap, is all that is really needed, until puberty and even after. The genitalia of both genders is mostly self-cleaning.

QUES: I was told that a boy who was not circumcised needed to have his foreskin pulled back at each bath so that his glans could be scrubbed clean. Is this really necessary?

ANS: NO, not in the slightest, and it is very harmful. That myth is based on a 19th century pre-germ theory that the foreskin of a male child traps dangerous secretions that need to be cleaned out. In fact some of his normal secretions –lysozome and lysozyme, the same immune agents found in tears, for instance–– prevent infection. Moreover, the foreskin of a boy is not able to be retracted without tearing and bleeding which risk infection and permanent scarring. Forcible retraction is both harmful to your son and very painful; it is also expressly forbidden by the American Academy of Pediatrics, who say:

“...foreskin retraction should NEVER be forced. Until separation occurs, do NOT try to pull the foreskin back — especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding and tears in the skin. " (From the American Academy of Pediatrics bulletin, "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis")

QUES: My pediatrician says my son’s foreskin should have been retractable when he reached age 5, and that he now has a condition the doctor called ‘phimosis.’

ANS: Your pediatrician is wrong, (by more than ten years), about the typical timetable for foreskin retractability. He or she may be confusing true phimosis (Greek for ‘trapping’) with normal anatomy for a child of that age. Only a careful examination of the tissue can detect the difference. His or her analysis is based on outdated clinical criteria from the 1940’s.  That fast-track timetable for natural retraction has been systematically debunked, over and over, and is now considered fully obsolete. Careful and well-trained medical providers know that an ‘adherent’ foreskin, one that sticks to the glans, is a protective feature of the still-developing penis. The membrane that connects the foreskin to the glans is called the ‘balano-preputial lamina’ or BPL. The BPL is a normal, natural, protective and necessary part of your growing boy and may endure, without worry, into late puberty. The BPL protects the boy’s foreskin and glans from infection, mechanical irritation from clothing, feces and urine until puberty when the boy can care for himself. Clinical research shows that only 50% of ten year-old boys can fully retract their foreskins. At any younger age, many fewer can do so of course. In any case, there is no pressing need for anyone, including the child, to see his glans before adulthood.

QUES: I was told by my family practice doctor that I should pull my son’s foreskin back a little more each day, to break what he called the ‘adhesions’ that form there. He told me that if I did not do so, the child would surely develop phimosis and need either surgery or a circumcision. My son screams when I do this and it is very unpleasant for me and I am guessing, painful for him. Why is this necessary?

ANS: Daily foreskin retraction is not only NOT necessary, it is also very harmful to your child. Those ‘adhesions’ as your doctor erroneously terms them, are a natural protective membrane that should be left alone to develop as nature intended. That membrane is not a birth defect that needs repair or attention. Forcible retraction is, ironically, the commonest cause of iatrogenic (doctor induced) phimosis, an unnatural trapping of the glans by a foreskin that cannot be retracted because it has developed adherent scar tissue. Forced retraction of the child can also lead to adult sexual dysfunction. (See the more detailed section on forced retraction elsewhere in this website.)

QUES: My doctor says my eight year-old son has an infection of the foreskin or glans and needs to be circumcised or this will recur or get worse. Will this be necessary? It seems drastic just for one infection.

ANS: You have good instincts that circumcision is drastic care for a single infection. It is common for the foreskin or glans, which come in occasional contact with the pathogens in feces, to develop a mild irritation or infection. These usually resolve by themselves without any need for a doctor’s care. Even a lingering infection of the foreskin or glans should be treated no differently than any other infection—conservative measures used first, more aggressive measures later if early attempts fail. There are good topical ointments and antibiotics now available that may assist, if they are even needed at all. There is never a need to amputate normal, healthy, nerve-dense, sexually vital and protective tissue merely to address a transient infection.

QUES: Sometimes my 4 year old son’s foreskin seems to swell up when he urinates, getting all puffy. He does not complain about it so it doesn’t appear to be painful. What is that swelling caused by?

ANS: Please don’t worry. Likely all you are seeing is ‘ballooning’ of your son’s foreskin, a natural and benign event. It is caused by the fact that when the membrane that connects the glans and the foreskin slowly dissolves, it leaves pockets, spaces where urine can migrate. When the child urinates, if the stream is powerful enough, or the child does not pull his foreskin back a tiny bit to help the stream stay straight, it can run backwards under the foreskin, inflating the spaces where the tissue has naturally detached. As urine is sterile, this is not a problem. Young intact boys have been known to amuse themselves by pinching off their preputial meatus (the foreskin opening where urine exits) to inflate their partially detached foreskins on purpose. This is harmless exploration, and as the foreskin is exquisitely nerve-dense, likely a pleasant sensation—though of course it might get messy!

serendipity22, why not leave this article alone and write an article of your own, explaining your opinion? You say you want to inform people, well there is your chance. You will inform a lot more people by writing your own article rather than making a little side comment here.

There is one point that you've missed......a baby heals twice as fast as an older child, what takes a week in older child or 2wks in teen/adult is only a few days for a baby. I have a friend who's son was 8 when he had to be circumsized. He suffered numerous uti's and had constant infections around the penile head, most of his life. His stream was in 2 directions! After circumiscion, no more uti's, no more infections and can hit the mark every time he goes! I also have friends who were catholic (well he was) and continued the family tradition in all 3 of their sons. Within a few days it was healed, with in a week you couldn't tell. I agree with lisa if your going to do this procedure on a senstive male area... the sooner the better. It took my first friends boy 2 weeks to recover (he was premmie born at 28wks) and my other friends boys a few days.

I think you need to rethink your style of writing as it comes across defensive and offensive. You sounded condesending and judgemental. Using softer words and adding your own opinion will soften your comments. Also quoting can cause offence too. When correcting someone I always begin with word actually and then I give the facts and where every possible where I got the facts from. I also make sure I state my position so ppl understand where I'm comming from. Like in this issue I am neither for or against. I am a christian but I believe this is an individual choice and as stated, it is up to parents to decide whats best for them. Leaving it or removing the foreskin has little affect on the individual so it is up to the parents to decide this as a matter of conscience.

Lisa has provided a medical stand point and one I happen to agree with. The hype surrounding this issue is one of religion not circumscion. It is generally considered a religious practice and this society and politics are doing everything they can to remove religion from our lives. Your arguement is a religious one NOT a medical one. There is medical evidence to support both practices ( non removal or removal). It would be wise to understand the whole debate before adding your 2 cents worth.

For the record we didn't have our boys done. Our descion was based on the following.

1 Dad is not done

2 It is an old testament practice not a new testament (circumscion was done to set theJjews ppl apart from the rest world) as Paul said in the book Acts that even the Gentiles belong to God and they should not be subjected to the old practice as Jesus had come and the old covenant is gone and we live in the new.

3 We are not Jewish nor are we Catholic.

4 There is no medical need.

Raven

I do believe that for religious purposes it could be done when the child is quite young,but I don't know if you could insist on it being done without very good reason.When my son gad his done,the other boys that were also getting it done that day were roughly the same age.