Infection rates

[Pippi Longstocking]

I frequently hear people explaining their decision to circumcise their sons using the reason "to prevent infections". I find this perplexing because I can't imagine infections are a big enough problem to warrant surgery on a newborn baby's genitals. In my experience, foreskins do their job well - I have two sons, a dad, three brothers and a husband who are all intact. None of them have ever had an infection. Not one! So to me, it seems like the decision to circumcise ought to be considered only after a history of infections that were difficult to treat rather than as a preventative measure.

I am adding a poll (be patient! :p ). I have decided to make it public to try to encourage people to vote honestly. :shame: :p

[cheezelkat]

My son is intact and had one infection at 7 weeks old. It wasn't serious.

[KarniF00l]

Both my sons are intact and have never had any sort of irritation or infection.

I'll also add that DH is intact and has never had an infection either.

[werdxela]

Both my sons are intact neither has had an infection

[punkbaby]

my sons intact and never had one, dh is intact never had one both my 3 brothers are in tact and they havent had one either

[Noah_and_Elijah]

My son is intact and has never had an infection.

[MW&S]

Making it public will probably mean that some ppl won't vote!

Anyway I cant vote as I dont have a son. If I ever do, he won't be circ.

Dh is intact and never has had an infection.

My ex was circ at 15 due to an infection tho!!

[Milliner]

Intact boy here and never had a problem.

[stellarella]

Intact, never had an infection.

Not only that I have NEVER EVER heard of any boy, be it brother, cousin, nephew, friend, DP, son....etc etc in all of my life who has had any sort of infection and certainly none who have be circumcised because of infection. (And you may be asking how I would know this, its because I find the topic of circumcision very important and yes it is something I discuss often with friends and family.)

Since I joined BH I hear about all these alleged infections from the pro-circ party.....:detective:

Interesting....:detective:

[Pippi Longstocking]

Making it public will probably mean that some ppl won't vote!



Yep, I did think about that but wanted to keep it as accurate as possible. :)

[kristi001]

My Son Hasnt Had any sort of infection as yet.

Thou My 2 nephews (7 and 4) have both had numerous infections.

My Older nephew Has quite a Large forskin so apparently Prone to getting infections.

His Father also had this same problem and was circumcised at 15 due to a serious infection.

[Milliner]

Intact, never had an infection.

Not only that I have NEVER EVER heard of any boy, be it brother, cousin, nephew, friend, DP, son....etc etc in all of my life who has had any sort of infection and certainly none who have be circumcised because of infection. (And you may be asking how I would know this, its because I find the topic of circumcision very important and yes it is something I discuss often with friends and family.)

Since I joined BH I hear about all these alleged infections from the pro-circ party.....:detective:

Interesting....:detective:

I could have written this post, I was thinking the exact same thing last week. VERY interesting indeed.

[secondtimearound2]

My son is circumcised and he will never suffer any infection of the foreskin. :thumbsup:

[twolittlegirls]

Sorry, I don't have a son but wanted to join in. The only person out of all the intact people I know who have ever had an infection was my brother and it wasn't serious. I used to think circumcision was something I would do, but not anymore, thanks to you lovely ladies!

[Milliner]

My Son Hasnt Had any sort of infection as yet.



The poll is asking about YOUR son, yet you voted that he has had numerous infections. :confused: :detective:

[stellarella]

Perhaps they didnt realise it was a public poll.

So we know some people only vote to skew the results...interesting. :detective: :thumbsdown:

[kristi001]

The poll is asking about YOUR son, yet you voted that he has had numerous infections. :confused: :detective:

Oops.. :o

Well I aint i a silly duffer Thanks For pointing it out!

[kristi001]

Perhaps they didnt realise it was a public poll.

:yes: I Knew It was Public..

Concidering it was Noted in like 2 other Posts before me.

Interesting thou :detective:

[PunkyDiva]

This is the honest, first hand truth.
I have one friend who circumcised her son not long after birth. Three months later he developed severe penile infections which then went to his kidneys and he ended up in hospital having invasive operations to fix it all up.
Who knows if he would have still gone down this path uncircumcised, but interests me cause he's the only young boy I know to have suffered any severe infections anyways.

[Beany]

My son is intact and hasn't had an infection.

My brothers and nephews were intact for a number of years (the youngest that any of them were circumcised was at the age of 6, it was done for religious reasons) and hadn't suffered any infections before the procedure. One nephew did have a minor one after it, though.

[Angelmist♥]

I voted my son is intact and never had an infection but that should really be multiplied by 2.I have 7 and 6yr old boy's and neither have ever had a drama with their foreskins:D

[Mamaduke]

I've got 2 boys, both intact.
Jesse has never had any infections.
Lucas had a couple of minor infections but the pediatric surgeon wasn't inclined to operate (thank goodness).

[Blueberry Crumble]

My son is intact and no infections.

[MrsTwith3]

Both my boys are intact. DS1 has had Ballanitis. I was also told by the Dr that his foreskin is extremely tight (pftt it will retract when its good and ready) and he will need to be circumsised at some point(I dont think so Dr).
DS2 has not had any problems.

[ShadyCharacter]

Interesting, someone else whose son has had numerous infections doesn't seem to have a son at all :confused:

I answered that my son is in tact and has never had an infection.

Most of my male friends and relatives are uncirced, and none of them have had infections except one. That one being my step-brother, who had to be circumcised at 17 years old.... and yep, it was excruciating for him. Will he be circumcising any future children he has? Nope, he reckons he would rather leave it till something goes wrong than removing any bits 'just in case'.

[Tam-I-Am]

Since I joined BH I hear about all these alleged infections from the pro-circ party.....:detective:

Interesting....:detective:

Actually, I'm very anti circ, I don't agree with it unless its a medical necessity - and only then after every single other avenue of treatment has been well and truly exhausted.

A close family member of mine required a circ in his mid-30s due to phimosis which led to tightening of the foreskin and painful erections, as well as infection. He obviously tried many many other treatments, and eventually opted to have a circumcision because he was in constant pain.

So, this not being from the pro-circ brigade (although admittedly, it didn't happen to me - so it IS 2nd hand) - Sometimes there ARE necessary medical reasons for circing.

[stellarella]

Actually, I'm very anti circ, I don't agree with it unless its a medical necessity - and only then after every single other avenue of treatment has been well and truly exhausted.

A close family member of mine required a circ in his mid-30s due to phimosis which led to tightening of the foreskin and painful erections, as well as infection. He obviously tried many many other treatments, and eventually opted to have a circumcision because he was in constant pain.

So, this not being from the pro-circ brigade (although admittedly, it didn't happen to me - so it IS 2nd hand) - Sometimes there ARE necessary medical reasons for circing.


I have never said that circumcision is never necessary however I think the poll speaks for itself with regard to infection rates.

Its quite easy to say "oh, I know lots of people who had infections" when you want to back up an argument.

Anyway statistical data comfirms the fact that infection rates are not as high as pro-circers would have us believe.

And just to reiterate. I am fully aware that circumcisions are sometimes required for medical reasons and the quoted post doesnt suggest otherwise. It only brings up the issue of all these alleged infections. :)

[QTB]

My son is intact and has never had an infection

[Funkychicken]

DS#1 is 9yo today and has had NO infections-ever. Not even a sign of one.

DS#2 is 20 months and he has never had any sign of one either.

[pookiesossige]

My son is intact and has never had an infection.

I've also noticed that he has a pretty loooong 'turtleneck' happening there :laughing: As in, a foreskin substantially longer then his penis. It does not put him at higher risk for infections or anything. Especially as it hasn't yet begun to retract.


It REALLY peeves me off that people are voting for the "intact and frequent infections" option when they a) don't have children and b) have their son/s circumcised. :mad: :mad:

[stellarella]

It REALLY peeves me off that people are voting for the "intact and frequent infections" option when they a) don't have children and b) have their son/s circumcised. :mad: :mad:


But does it surprise you? :rolleyes:

I'm just glad the poll is public...it sheds some light on the situation.

[Elfin]

My son is intact and has had a couple of infections not severe ones but he did need to use Bactoban cream to clear them up.

[canberramomma]

My son is intact and never had an infection, my brothers are both intact and never had an infection, my DH is circ and never had an infection, my father is circ and never had an infection. However, I am starting to wonder (and I have posted this in another thread), due to new research regarding the rate of sexually transmitted INFECTION in circ males compared to intact males, should we consider circumcision in a different light. Maybe it should be up there with immunising girls against some strains of cervical cancer. Just a thought that has been brewing in my lil' brain.

[Kangaskippy]

No infections here (touch wood, he is only 12mths afterall) and DS is circumcised.

[MumOf4Monsters]

I voted yes to my son being intact and having a minor infection. It's kinda hard to vote as i have three boys that are all intact and only one has ever had an infection. I assumed that i would be able to vote in the catagory for intact with no infection also, but apparently you can't vote twice :thumbsdown:
My husband is circed and when DS1 was born we automatically booked him in for a circ. I was'nt entirely happy with it but all of my family members are circed and i was told that he would be confused because he would look different than dad. (stupid, i know!)
I put my foot down & decided against the procedure. I just could'nt put my little baby through the pain! And yes i've heard it all before! They're just babies, they don't feel it. They won't remember it. They'll get infections and have to be circed one day anyway.:ecomcity:

I was told that i was being cruel which just broke my heart! So anyway, you can imagine how much blame was put on me when DS1 got an infection when he was 2 yrs old. It was pretty horrific! He was in alot of pain....every time he did a wee he would just scream in pain. Makes you understand what kind of pain a newborn baby would be in after having there foresking cut off.:( Don't get me wrong, i beleive that everyone has an opinion and should do what they feel is best for their child but i just could'nt go through with it.

[BaDaBing]

I really hate these circ threads as ppl are just so judgemental about others that is why I usually don't read them.

For us...
One son is circ'd no infections
One son isn't and has constant small probs

My friends brother is 30 odd and just had to have it done due having issues :thumbsdown:

It'd be interesting to have this poll done in a nursing home.

[MotherNurture]

I voted that my son is intact and has never had an infection.

I wanted to mention though that many times parents may believe-or, even be told-a child has an infection when really there's just some irritation going on. Irritation can be caused by anything from a bug bite to a scratch from a fingernail to changing your laundry detergent to being in a diaper too long or not gettin bubble bath rinsed off thoroughly. It's also not unusual for a little discharged smegma to be mistaken for "pus".

All too frequently, at least in the US, doctors see a slightly red foreskin, diagnose 'infection', treat with a broad spectrum antibiotic. If it was just irritation, the redness goes away regardless. If it was a issue with a little yeast growth, the antibiotic can worsen the problem. If it was an infection, but wasn't cultured and the wrong antibiotic was used the infection can seem to go away but worsens after the antibiotic is stopped (because it wasn't actually completely cured) and then the boy is diagnosed with 'repeat infections'. Sadly, it's a viscious cycle.

We also have a problem here with well-meaning but ignorant care providers telling parents of intact boys to pull back their baby/young son's foreskin and clean underneath it, sometimes with q-tips, soap, or in one case I even heard rubbing alcohol. In addition to being unnecessary & extremely painful causes tears and abrasion which are an entry point for infection. Overzealous cleaning destroys good flora/ph balance creating an ideal opportunity for yeast. Stretching the opening (preputial spincter) so it's looser and can't do it's job as well, keeping the tip snug so urine can flow out and yucky stuff (like feces) can't get in.

Sadly, I think parents of intact little boys are often overly-anxious about vigilently watching for problems and may jump-the-gun when there's a little irritation because our culture tells us that the foreskin is far more problematic than it really is. In reality, it's no different than little girl bits...leave them alone, rinse occasionally, and chances are he'll be just fine.

Jen

PS. It sounds like of the 4 votes for having an intact son with repeat infections, one vote was accidental (a mother of an intact boy who's had no infections) and at least one person who has no sons also chose that option. So, that reduces that result by half. I suspect that the single infection percentage could be reduced by equally as much if it were phrased, "My intact son had one minor infection, confirmed by a culture, because it would weed out minor irritation/diaper rash.

[FunkyMonkey]

DS is circed, and has never had an infection, before or after. My naivety is the only reason he is circed and I live with this regret every day.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Interesting poll results, eh?! It confirmed what I already suspected - infections are rare and therefore circumcising to prevent them seems to be a huge over-reaction.
I'd much rather encourage my boys to wash daily. :yes:

[lillyflower04]

My son is circed and had no infection. I have known several men that had to be circed due to infection. There are plenty out there, they just don't tell everyone. I know of two boys, born in the last 3 months who had balintis (sp?) and had to be circed as a newborn, it does happen.


Interesting poll results, eh?! It confirmed what I already suspected - infections are rare and therefore circumcising to prevent them seems to be a huge over-reaction.

Yes, the results do show low infection rates, but I think it would be agreed that the majority of members have kids under the age of 12. The possibility of a 2 y.o getting an infection is low in comparison to that of a teen, purely by the amount of years lived. Simply being older ups the odds of infection, or any illness for that matter. Does that make sense?? I've noticed a lot of infection seems to happen as a teen and adult, don't ask me why.

[Pippi Longstocking]

This poll was created to get genuine feedback - there has been no singling out which means that the poll has been successful. I started the poll because I consistently hear infection used as a reason to circumcise. This perplexed me due to my own experience indicating that infected foreskins are very rare - I wanted the stats to see your anecdote and raise you a data.


My son is circed and had no infection. I have known several men that had to be circed due to infection. There are plenty out there, they just don't tell everyone. I know of two boys, born in the last 3 months who had balintis (sp?) and had to be circed as a newborn, it does happen. My anecdotal evidence suggests quite the opposite. My family all consist of uncircumcised men and NONE of them have ever had infections. So in our sample of two, we have a draw.




Yes, the results do show low infection rates, but I think it would be agreed that the majority of members have kids under the age of 12. The possibility of a 2 y.o getting an infection is low in comparison to that of a teen, purely by the amount of years lived. Does that make sense?? I've noticed a lot of infection seems to happen as a teen and adult, don't ask me why.
Surely if the risk of infection is greater in adolescents/ grown men we could allow them to choose to be circed or not? We could wait and see if they were in the rare minority of men prone to infections and deal with it as cases arise?

[ShadyCharacter]

I open theads on circ hoping to find a balanced, respectful discussion but never seem to find it. C'mon ladies, let's discuss without being nasty to each other :shame: There has been very little 'discussion' about circ in this thread, balanced or otherwise. No nasty comments, no personal attacks, nothing at all except a couple of people getting on the defensive before there is even anything to be defensive about.

[BreakfastatTiffanys]

My ds is 7, he has never had an infection:thumbsup:

Dh is 42 and also never had an infection.:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mum2my4]

I have three intact sons and not one of them has ever had a UTI or any other kind of infection. My DH is also intact and in the 9 years I have been with him he has never had any infection or any other problems with his foreskin.

[BreakfastatTiffanys]

Interesting poll results, eh?! It confirmed what I already suspected - infections are rare and therefore circumcising to prevent them seems to be a huge over-reaction.
I'd much rather encourage my boys to wash daily. :yes:

Yep, got to agree with you there Guv. Very interesting results.:)

[my_lot]

two uncircd boys here.


my older boy had many many infections from about 18 months. he was in undies all day as he was toilet training/trained. so plenty of airing and medication yet he still got this infection. made his foreskin very tight, red, pussy, swollen.

2nd ds has not had an infection, he is only 7 months so we'll see what happens...

[secondtimearound2]

I think these polls dont mean much anyways.
If every single person on the hub voted, then maybe we would have more of an acurate idea of stats for THIS FORUM.
But usually people that only have a view on this issue actually vote.
Alot of people go 'oh not another circ poll/thread'...

Yes I agree. This is one of many forums and um 60 voters out of 20,434,176 which is the population of Australia means jack really.

Oh and when the Poll police are out targeting peoples honesty and being public I don't think many will vote honestly. They may be told that they don't clean thier son properly :ecomcity: .

[Pippi Longstocking]

The aim of the poll is to get a rough idea. A poll on bubhub is never intended to be submitted to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to be relied on as 100% accurate data relevant to all of Australia and to take it as such would be silly. However, I do believe that bubhub does offer a reasonably good sample of Australia's population with most demographics covered. I think we can safely assume that the poll offers a fairly accurate representation, particularly because it is public.

If you feel that the poll is completely inaccurate and misleading, why on earth did you both vote on it? :confused:

[Mum&bubs]

Well obviously I DON'T have a son but I thought this thread was interesting.

I asked DF as he is circumcised and he has never had an infection. And also my best friend's son is circumcised and never had an infection either.

[A Party of Five]

I have a male friend that had to have an emergency circumcision because he had a really bad infection. Let just say if something went up it would not go back down with causing him a lot of pain :o

[Can I?]

Maybe that's why they are against circumcision?

[Beany]

At least one of the people that voted that way is circumcised himself and is likely talking about his own experience. The other may well be doing the same, too.

[Beany]

What they have offered isn't hearsay, it is first hand experience. As the long term owners of circumcised penises, I think their experience is quite pertinent.

And yes, I'd feel the same way if there were uncircumcised men voting in the other sections.

[Pippi Longstocking]

I just dont understand how you rip it up people who have voted 'My son is intact and has suffered numerous infections', when they apparently arent in that section, when the two who voted for 'My son is circumcised and has had a minor infection' and 'My son is circumcised and has suffered numerous infections' are known on these thread for being VERY anti circ and one has post even saying about how even medical procedures arent always necessary. So to me are quite obviously not in that section, however as it is 'on your side' you let them be...
Hmmmm...

God, i am going to stop fighting now and leave this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Firstly, I haven't "ripped it up" anyone. Secondly, I don't know the stories of the two posters that selected the circumcised with infections options. One of the posters that selected the option to say that her son was uncircumcised but had experienced infections posted right here in this thread saying that her son had NEVER had an infection. The other poster that chose the same option doesn't have a son. :rolleyes:

Can you see my point?

[Pippi Longstocking]

Hi benellatoto, I noticed that you have voted on the poll and you just joined today. Don't be too shy to post, I noticed that you haven't yet made any posts at all. I would love to hear the story of your son's numerous infections if you'd care to tell us? Welcome to bubhub :wave:

[mumx3littlies]

Chill people chill!:laughing:

We have 2 intact sons and never had a problem with their penises at all.

[xkwzit]

I have deleted a bunch of off topic posts. I think that talking too much about who chose what and their motivations runs pretty close to calling them liars, so let's not go there any more. I'm sure that the vast majority of respondents are playing by the rules and so this should be good enough for this poll.

And no, individual votes can't be removed from the poll.:p

Cheers

[abibelsmum]

Intact, never had an infection.

Not only that I have NEVER EVER heard of any boy, be it brother, cousin, nephew, friend, DP, son....etc etc in all of my life who has had any sort of infection and certainly none who have be circumcised because of infection. (And you may be asking how I would know this, its because I find the topic of circumcision very important and yes it is something I discuss often with friends and family.)

Someone I used to work with had a 2 y/o with an infection and the dr told her he might need to be circumcised if it didn't clear up quickly or if it came back. However he is still intact as far as I know.

[lillyflower04]

I find it interesting that of those intact, nearly 20% of these boys have had some order of an infection (okay, minus a couple of percent for the 'fudged' responses), which i think is actually pretty high (58 no infections to 11 that have). And like I said before, most of the boys referred to in the survey are young kids so there's still a lifetime to develop issues.....

[Pippi Longstocking]

I find it interesting that of those intact, nearly 20% of these boys have had some order of an infection (okay, minus a couple of percent for the 'fudged' responses), which i think is actually pretty high (58 no infections to 11 that have). And like I said before, most of the boys referred to in the survey are young kids so there's still a lifetime to develop issues.....

Actually, I think you'll find it's 13.4% or 16% if you don't take in to account at least 2 of the fudged respondents.

What is more pertinent though is that most were minor infections which didn't require surgery. :detective:

[Niki]

My son is intact and has never had an infection

[ShadyCharacter]

Actually, I think you'll find it's 13.4% or 16% if you don't take in to account at least 2 of the fudged respondents.

What is more pertinent though is that most were minor infections which didn't require surgery. :detective:
I actually make it about 10% if you take into account 4 definite 'incorrect' responses. As if, not accusing anyone of lying or stretching the truth, but where it is impossible that their answer is correct by their own admission.


I find it interesting that of those intact, nearly 20% of these boys have had some order of an infection (okay, minus a couple of percent for the 'fudged' responses), which i think is actually pretty high (58 no infections to 11 that have).In THIS poll, the infection rate is actually higher in circumcised boys. Not claiming at all that this is correct, but just following your example here.

[MotherNurture]

Actually, I think you'll find it's 13.4% or 16% if you don't take in to account at least 2 of the fudged respondents.

What is more pertinent though is that most were minor infections which didn't require surgery. :detective:


I actually make it about 10% if you take into account 4 definite 'incorrect' responses. As if, not accusing anyone of lying or stretching the truth, but where it is impossible that their answer is correct by their own admission.

In THIS poll, the infection rate is actually higher in circumcised boys. Not claiming at all that this is correct, but just following your example here.

It should also be noted that many reports of "infection" are really synonymous with mild irritation...redness, itching, swelling...which can have many causes (like little boys playing with themselves, changing laundry detergent, a bug bite, not rinsing bubblebath off thoroughly, or just plain ol' diaperrash). Unless the infection is *confirmed* by taking a sample (culture) with a sterile cotton swab from the tip of the foreskin and sending it to a lab to see what grows over a few days, there's no way to know if it was really an infection or not. Occasional irritation of tender bits that spend a large percentage of time enclosed in a diaper exposed to moisture, urine, and feces isn't terribly unusual regardless of gender or circumcision status.

Jen

[Can I?]

My youngest son has had several bouts of sore looking foreskin - one with ulcerated skin. But that isn't an infection either. It cleared with lots of nappy free time and a bit of barrier cream the same as any other nappy rash.

I wonder how many people checked the infection box when their sons really only had irritation or rash?

[lillyflower04]

In THIS poll, the infection rate is actually higher in circumcised boys. Not claiming at all that this is correct, but just following your example here.

Yes, I noticed this but I wondered whether these respondants meant they had their boy cired THEN they got an infection, or whether they got the circ as a result of the infections?



I actually make it about 10% if you take into account 4 definite 'incorrect' responses. As if, not accusing anyone of lying or stretching the truth, but where it is impossible that their answer is correct by their own admission.

With all this talk about these couple of incorrect reponses, it can be argued that there may be anti-circ members that have had boys with infections, but want to skew the results to their POV. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it can go both ways. It's just that those of us that circ haven't gone to the trouble of doublechecking that every 'intact and no infection' response is true.

[ShadyCharacter]

With all this talk about these couple of incorrect reponses, it can be argued that there may be anti-circ members that have had boys with infections, but want to skew the results to their POV. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it can go both ways. It's just that those of us that circ haven't gone to the trouble of doublechecking that every 'intact and no infection' response is true.
It may well be true both ways, and that is why I am not SPECULATING on anything... I only discounted the votes that were definitely incorrect. I didn't look at those who voted circumcised and no infection either. I also NEVER accused anyone of trying to 'skew' anything, but it is quite obvious that those who voted their sons were in tact and had multiple infections that don't actually have a son MUST have picked the wrong box, by mistake or otherwise :)

[reAllytee]

This is why i havent voted due to the above speculation in regards to being circ'ed & having infections.

DS1 was circ'ed at 3mths after numerous infections so i dont feel i can vote.

[MotherNurture]

allyou,

Can I ask you how you were caring for his foreskin? Leaving it totally alone and just wiping off the outside with a diaperwipe, or was there some manipulation/retraction going on? Just curious. I'm sorry to hear he had problems. :(

Jen

[stellarella]

With all this talk about these couple of incorrect reponses, it can be argued that there may be anti-circ members that have had boys with infections, but want to skew the results to their POV. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it can go both ways. It's just that those of us that circ haven't gone to the trouble of doublechecking that every 'intact and no infection' response is true.

Well lets look at actual statistics then shall we??

Who can help me out. Sorry I'm too lazy to dig through the old threads, but I know they are out there...:o

And yes it is possible that extreme anti-circers might vote incorrectly however there are a few anti-circers who have already voted and admitted to infections/irritations.

I have no reason to skew results because actual statistics are on my side. I dont need to skew them to support my stance.

[MotherNurture]

1/100 risk of UTI during the first year of life for intact boys; intact girls have 5x that risk.

Over their lifetime, intact boys have a 99% chance of never needing to be circumcised for medical reasons...

Conversely, circed boys are at risk for problems including a 1% chance of requiring recircumcision or revision, a 10% of meatal stenosis, and a 71% risk of penile adhesions. This doesn't address immediate surgical risks like infection, hemorrhage, and death nor does it address the guarenteed side-effect of having had the most sensitive part of his penis (according to recent research) removed.

Jen

[Aquamarine]

All 3 boys intact and none have had an infection so far.

[stellarella]

1/100 risk of UTI during the first year of life for intact boys; intact girls have 5x that risk.

Over their lifetime, intact boys have a 99% chance of never needing to be circumcised for medical reasons...

Conversely, circed boys are at risk for problems including a 1% chance of requiring recircumcision or revision, a 10% of meatal stenosis, and a 71% risk of penile adhesions. This doesn't address immediate surgical risks like infection, hemorrhage, and death nor does it address the guarenteed side-effect of having had the most sensitive part of his penis (according to recent research) removed....

Jen

Or the emotional trauma of the pain and suffering...

Thanks MN, you always come to the rescue when needed. :p

So what more evidence do we need???
Serious question. What more evidence is required?

[lillyflower04]

I only discounted the votes that were definitely incorrect.

That were picked up by a public vote and members 'checking' on the validity. Isn't that a bit silly doing that? I get what you are saying, but what I'm saying is just because these were definately incorrect doesn't mean it doesn't go both ways, it just means these were the ones that were checked on.


I also NEVER accused anyone of trying to 'skew' anything,


I never said you did, but there were a couple of comments made that the wrong vote/s was delibrate (therefore trying to change the results).


Perhaps they didnt realise it was a public poll.

So we know some people only vote to skew the results...interesting. :detective: :thumbsdown:

[stellarella]

Yes I said people skew the results. It was blaringly obvious to me :wave:

ETA: No one 'checked' on anything but when you are on a forum and get to know people its a bit obvious. One member doesn't have a son and 2 other members have admitted that their sons are circed and have never had infections.

Yes I was hasty in my comment. I posted it right at the beginning of the thread and yes there may have been over sights by the posters. Mistakes. Thats fine, I see that now, however they still cannot be counted in the poll which is the REAL issue now.

[reAllytee]

allyou,

Can I ask you how you were caring for his foreskin? Leaving it totally alone and just wiping off the outside with a diaperwipe, or was there some manipulation/retraction going on? Just curious. I'm sorry to hear he had problems. :(

Jen

He was never touched in regards to manipulation/retraction i wouldnt have thought to nor would i have knowing that it wasnt done with my intact nephew.

He still unfortunately copped it & hated being bathed especially.

[lillyflower04]

So what more evidence do we need???
Serious question. What more evidence is required? .

Serious answer... anyone can find a study or research project to prove just about any opinion on any matter. Now I'm not saying all the stats you give are false or flawed, I'm simply saying one study doesn't make it true (or false for that matter). One thing I realised at uni (the course was quite research based) is that studies can have flaws in methodology, only look at a cetain race etc etc, and that goes for both sides of an argument. An example is risks of c/s birth. I've found some studies that back up my POV that VBAC is much safer with a UR rate of btween .1 - .5%, but I've also read studies that say up to 5 %. A pro VBACer will use the former study to prove their point, a pro c/s woman would use the latter. YKWIM?

Another example is anti-circers saying it reduces sensitivity and is proven in research, but only a few weeks ago on the radio I heard they've done a world wide study in the last few years and it's found that's untrue. The term breech trial is another. It showed high rates of mortality for natural breech birth, but infact what was found later was that the deaths happened from inexperienced practitioners, not from the vaginal breech birth being unsafe itself. I take research stats at face value and see that often it has a bias from the authors (which is often human nature) which can affect methodology.

[Mamalicious]

So to me, it seems like the decision to circumcise ought to be considered only after a history of infections that were difficult to treat rather than as a preventative measure.


Both my DS and DH are circ'd, and neither have had an infection.

DH was circ'd when he was about 12, I think,I don't know if he had ever had an infection before that.

But, I do agree with the above post by Guv, HOWEVER, infection is not why my boys are circ'd.

If we weren't cicumcising our boys because of religion, they would only be circ'd if they had numerous infections that were becoming difficult to deal with.

[stellarella]

lilliflower04 - Do you have any statistics to present to support circumcision in relation to infection rates?

[Myztik]

Both my boys are intact and neither have ever had an infection.

[lillyflower04]

Honestly Stella, I haven't looked at any research to support either side of the infection argument, I never realised circ was such a huge issue until I come here, my beliefs on infection are anecdotal only. Just as someone here said they had never known anyone who was circed as an adult from infection, and this contributed to their opinion that it was unneccesaary, I have come across several men, and this has contributed to my beliefs. Again, I'm not saying the stats given are wrong, just that research on both sides of this argument can't always be trusted 100%

For example, I found this in about 2 minutes that proves higher infection rates for uncirced boys, but is it bias FOR circ??

"Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [204]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised." http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

[ShadyCharacter]

That were picked up by a public vote and members 'checking' on the validity. Isn't that a bit silly doing that? I get what you are saying, but what I'm saying is just because these were definately incorrect doesn't mean it doesn't go both ways, it just means these were the ones that were checked on.
I don't think it was silly at all considering my assumptions turned out to be correct :) I checked because I find it impossible to believe that there were that many people who had in-tact sons that had numerous infections. Turns out I was right. Not sure what is silly about that?

I DO understand what you are saying, but as far as I can see, most of the members who are active in discouraging circumcision have voted their sons are intact and have had no infections... which is a probable scenario, rather than the improbable one above. They have voted knowing its a public poll, so if it bothers you so much, go ahead and do your own checking - I am sure none of them would mind :)

[ShadyCharacter]

STATISTICS STATISTICS!!
Do they make you want to/not circumcise your son? what do they mean? Its all just numbers and percentages isnt it. Just because the majority are doing it, I will too...
Of course they do! If I read from a reliable source that without circumcision, my son would have a 95% rate of having repeated infections through his life, I would probably circumcise him. Given that he has perhaps a 1% chance of this happening, I will not circumcise him!

[stellarella]

Honestly Stella, I haven't looked at any research to support either side of the infection argument, I never realised circ was such a huge issue until I come here, my beliefs on infection are anecdotal only. Just as someone here said they had never known anyone who was circed as an adult from infection, and this contributed to their opinion that it was unneccesaary, I have come across several men, and this has contributed to my beliefs. Again, I'm not saying the stats given are wrong, just that research on both sides of this argument can't always be trusted 100%

For example, I found this in about 2 minutes that proves higher infection rates for uncirced boys, but is it bias FOR circ??



Well personally I would prefer to make decisions based on the overall picture. That just seems to make sense to me.

Yes, we all have different experiences but I sure as HELL wont be making a decision based on what happened to my brother for example :no:

I owe it to my son to look at the bigger picture when making decisions about his genitals.

I personally find studies and statistics VERY valuable. From reputable sources studies/statistics can broaden our knowledge outside out immediate experiences. ;)

I have dealth with research and sourcing in my lifetime too.

[stellarella]

STATISTICS STATISTICS!!
Do they make you want to/not circumcise your son? what do they mean? Its all just numbers and percentages isnt it. Just because the majority are doing it, I will too...
It is the same with vaxinating. Majority do, but we dont always follow majority. We decide for ourselves.


No its not just numbers and percentages to me. As I said in my PP, they give a great picture of what is really happening on a larger scale. Stepping outside my own immediate experiences I can see that regardless of whether every male in my family has had infections, the risk of infection is still 1% so it would be very silly of me to circumcise based on personal experience.

And as for immunising. No I dont immunise/not immunise to follow the crowd. I base my decision on solid research and hard facts...including statistics.

[ShadyCharacter]

"Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [204]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised." http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html
Yep, this comes from "Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA".

This also comes from "Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA":

"I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time."
- Dr.Thomas Wiswell (http://www.circumstitions.com/References.html#Wiswell),
quoted in "The Age-Old Question of Circumcision"
by Betsy A. Lehman, Boston Globe, June 22, 1987, p. 43

[lillyflower04]

I checked because I find it impossible to believe that there were that many people who had in-tact sons that had numerous infections.

Why?? Because it doesn't support your view? I'm not upping you, (please don't think that :) )I just wonder if pro-circers had gone through all the 'intact' respondants and then publically announced that they knew of at least one of the 'intact and no infection' responses that were lying I think the anti-circers would be a bit upset:yes:


I DO understand what you are saying, but as far as I can see, most of the members who are active in discouraging circumcision have voted their sons are intact and have had no infections... which is a probable scenario, rather than the improbable one above.

Once again, why improbable? Because it doesn't support your view? I've learnt that my opnions on this and everything in life are just that... an opinion not neccessarily fact. Just because you haven't come across infection with a foreskin doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I think there are some really intellegent, passionate and well meaning people here, and I really do respect the anti-circers POV. I just wish there could be a 'don't agree but accept your decision' kind of approach here...

[lillyflower04]

I have dealth with research and sourcing in my lifetime too.

Once again the whole point of my argument has been lost. The reason I pointed this out was because part of our studies was to critically analyse the validity of research (which is directly what I was talking about). Again I bow out because people can't respect each other's opinions. Funny how your happy to pick other people's words apart, but when others do it to you, you get defensive....

[stellarella]

Once again the whole point of my argument has been lost. The reason I pointed this out was because part of our studies was to critically analyse the validity of research (which is directly what I was talking about). I didn't mean I'm better than anyone else or anything and I think you're being rude now. Again I bow out because people can't respect each other's opinions. Funny how your happy to pick other people's words apart, but when others do it to you, you get defensive....


Sorry lilliflower I honestly wasn't being rude or snippy :) I should have inserted a smilie emoticon in there to get that accross.

Just letting you know that I too can validate research.

[stellarella]

I just wonder if pro-circers had gone through all the 'intact' respondants and then publically announced that they knew of at least one of the 'intact and no infection' responses that were lying I think the anti-circers would be a bit upset:yes:

As I said, no one checked anything, it was just really obvious with these particular cases as the posters had been very vocal in these threads.

Once again, why improbable? Because it doesn't support your view? I've learnt that my opnions on this and everything in life are just that... an opinion not neccessarily fact. Just because you haven't come across infection with a foreskin doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

No but the facts say that infection is extremely rare. I know it happens, but in 1% of cases.

I think there are some really intellegent, passionate and well meaning people here, and I really do respect the anti-circers POV. I just wish there could be a 'don't agree but accept your decision' kind of approach here...

The point is that its a passionate subject. It goes beyond the realm of "dont agree but accept your decision"...this is not about introducing solids, what kind of nappies to use or CC. This is about irreparably damaging a babies body part. I feel compelled to act on moral and ethical grounds.

[lillyflower04]

Sorry lilliflower I honestly wasn't being rude or snippy I should have inserted a smilie emoticon in there to get that accross.

that's okay :) ;)


No but the facts say that infection is extremely rare. I know it happens, but in 1% of cases.

But that's what I've been saying hun, the term 'fact' I apply pretty loosely to a majority of things. Did you open the link I found about the 'fact' that infection (or penile problems as they describe it) is higher in intact boys? What is fact???? One percent might be an understimation - even in this poll around 15% have had problems and that doesn't inlcude the possibility that two of the 'circed and had infections' could of had infections as an intact boy THEN circed.

[ShadyCharacter]

Why?? Because it doesn't support your view?
Um, no, because it just didn't seem right. From all the evidence I have seen, factual, ancedotal and otherwise, from posts on bub hub.... it did not seem right that the number could be that high. For example, if I started a poll and asked how many members had had broken arms, and 95% said they had, wouldn't that seem 'unlikely' to you? Sure, you may not check, but you would be fair in thinking it was improbable.


I just wonder if pro-circers had gone through all the 'intact' respondants and then publically announced that they knew of at least one of the 'intact and no infection' responses that were lying I think the anti-circers would be a bit upset:yes:
Um, no. Go right ahead. And if you come across a member who has voted that that their intact son has never had an infection and it is clear they don't have a son, go ahead and call them on it. I don't think us mean ol' anti-circers would be upset at all, we want an accurate as possible poll :)


Once again, why improbable? Because it doesn't support your view? I've learnt that my opnions on this and everything in life are just that... an opinion not neccessarily fact. Just because you haven't come across infection with a foreskin doesn't mean it doesn't happen.No, because once again, it doesn't support what I know to be true. I have never said it doesn't happen. It does. My step-brother was circumcised as a teenager due to ongoing issues, so more than most I know it DOES happen. But I also KNOW (fact, not just my opinion) that its not common. Not as common as some voters here would have us believe anyway ;)


I think there are some really intellegent, passionate and well meaning people here, and I really do respect the anti-circers POV. I just wish there could be a 'don't agree but accept your decision' kind of approach here...Thank you. I do accept a grown males decision to remove his own foreskin, but no, I can't support someone else choosing to do it for him.

[ShadyCharacter]

But that's what I've been saying hun, the term 'fact' I apply pretty loosely to a majority of things. Did you open the link I found about the 'fact' that infection (or penile problems as they describe it) is higher in intact boys? What is fact???? One percent might be an understimation - even in this poll around 15% have had problems and that doesn't inlcude the possibility that two of the 'circed and had infections' could of had infections as an intact boy THEN circed.For the record, the info in the link you provided quoted these stats:

and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05)
It said penile problems requiring medical visits (not requiring circumcision, but just 'medical visits') were at a rate of 10% (intact) and 5% (circ'd). Thats the difference between 5 in one hundred and 10 in one hundred. Even assuming that this is unbiased and accurate, that is still not enough of a difference to justify routine circ'ing IMO :no:

Though I will say, thanks for being able to have a calm and rational discussion on this topic... its rare for anyone who is 'pro-circ' to be able to do so :)

[stellarella]

The statistics MN quoted were...

"Over their lifetime, intact boys have a 99% chance of never needing to be circumcised for medical reasons..."

So that is a 1% chance that they will suffer an infection or other complication requiring circumcision.

This differs from the statistic you provided which is for ALL penile problems. 10% for uncircumcised and 5% for circumcised. This does not state that 10% of uncircumcised men need to be circumcised at a later date. It does however state that 5% of circumcised men also suffer penile problems.

It stands to reason that most of those problems (10%) will be minor and not warrant a medical circumcision.

IMO this is not a big enough difference to wrrant RIC of newborn males. Especially when you compare the rates of complications from circumcision.

"Conversely, circed boys are at risk for problems including a 1% chance of requiring recircumcision or revision, a 10% of meatal stenosis, and a 71% risk of penile adhesions. This doesn't address immediate surgical risks like infection, hemorrhage, and death nor does it address the guarenteed side-effect of having had the most sensitive part of his penis (according to recent research) removed." From MN.

So both statistics can be correct but we have to look a little deeper into what they actually mean.

[MotherNurture]

Some links...

Meatal Stenosis (http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic2356.htm)

Penile Adhesions (http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ponsky2/)

UTIs, Penile Cancer, Recircumcision (http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/Circumcision.htm)

HTHs,

Jen

[becca74]

hard to choose as i have only one son intact, and he has had numerous infections :crying: but my other boys have never had infections post circ.

voted circ'd & no infections, as that is the case for the majority in our house.

[WizzFizz]

My little boy is circ'd and never had any infections/problems with it. My DH is circ'd also and has never had any worries with it either.:thumbsup:

[Verdi]

I have 3 boys all intact. They have never had an infection to date, same as hubby.

This debate is annoying me cause every parent has the right to make the decision on what they think is best for their child, so i would never discredit someone elses oipnion on the subject and do not think that circumcision should be banned.

If we do ban it they are many ramifications from this.

You may be infringing on religious freedom and the last time i checked we are a democratic country and have the right to worship the way we want, if you start banning this then you are infringeing on the right to worship, I am celarly indicating the Jewish faith, NO ONE has the right to take that away.

Also you are inrfringeing on parental rights They are our kids and we conceived them and gave birth to them it is NO ONE else shoul be concerned with what the parents decision are in this regard.

I really hate the connutations and ineundos from certain posts that indicate those who cirumcise are doing a great injustice to their kids.

Parents have a right to be a parent.
If you don't like it don't do it, if we atart banning everything then we might as well live under a dictatorship and be forced to all think alike.

Just want topnote i have no faith in statistics either way, we all know they can be manipulated to whatever you want to believe.

[forbetoel]

My eldest son as had a few infections, nothing serious, mainly redness and sorness. His foreskin is still not retracting, so I may have to have him circumsised. My DS3 also suffers from the same redness and irritation at times. My children are all bathed regulary and know to keep their foreskins clean, I guess some kids are just more prone to irritations and infection.
I agree with Candyn, it is a parents choice, I have witnessed what I regard as "real" child abuse, and circumsission has nothing on it. :no: And I think until you see children who have suffered physical and emotional abuse, you will see that as long as a "circumsised" boy comes from a loving family, any short lived discomfort from his circumsision, cannot compare to what some poor little darlings go through at the hands of brutal and neglectful parents. Nobody should put parents who get their sons circumsised in the same boat. It is just not fair. :(

[forbetoel]

Interesting poll results, eh?! It confirmed what I already suspected - infections are rare and therefore circumcising to prevent them seems to be a huge over-reaction.
I'd much rather encourage my boys to wash daily. :yes:

Sadly not true. My boys all wash daily, yet two of them do suffer from minor infections. I would personally never circ just to avoid infections, but it is true that for some little boys, they will still get infections, even by washing daily. I am hoping to avoid circ for my boys, but if I have to, then I have to.

[MotherNurture]

we do ban it they are many ramifications from this.

You may be infringing on religious freedom and the last time i checked we are a democratic country and have the right to worship the way we want, if you start banning this then you are infringeing on the right to worship, I am celarly indicating the Jewish faith, NO ONE has the right to take that away.

IMO, beliefs should be instilled-not carved. Individuals have a right to their own beliefs, certainly, but nobody has a right to choose faith for a future, autonomous adult in such an intimate and permanent way. Remember too that female circumcision is practiced by some Muslims.


Also you are inrfringeing on parental rights They are our kids and we conceived them and gave birth to them it is NO ONE else shoul be concerned with what the parents decision are in this regard.

Why just "this" regard?

There are limits to what parents can do to their children. Most of us would agree that I don't have a right to tattoo "I love Mummy" on my son's forearm, no?


I really hate the connutations and ineundos from certain posts that indicate those who cirumcise are doing a great injustice to their kids.

I apologize for being unclear; I think circumcising healthy children and depriving them to whole, fully sensitive, and optimally functioning genitals is a great disservice. :(


Parents have a right to be a parent.
If you don't like it don't do it, if we atart banning everything then we might as well live under a dictatorship and be forced to all think alike.

I don't invasive genital contact a part of "parenting".

Jen

[ShadyCharacter]

Parents have a right to be a parent.
If you don't like it don't do it, if we atart banning everything then we might as well live under a dictatorship and be forced to all think alike.I have a right to be a parent, but my son has a right to keep his body intact :)

There are plenty of things we are banned from doing to our children to protect their safety... circumcision would just be another thing on a long list.

[nut]

My DS is intact and no infections, my DH is intact and no infections.:wave:

[Verdi]

Well lets take to the extreme then lets ban:

Lets ban ear piercings on babies,
There has to be a line where the government should just keep out of parental choices.

Look i have not and hopefully will not need to circumcise my boys all i am saying is that putting a ban on it is taking away parental rights.


This is from a medical site:

While some people may consider any kind of circumcision to be a form of ..........it is important to identify the distinction between male and female circumcision. One of the most compelling reasons for the distinction is that female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation, FGM, is equivalent to the removal of the shaft, not just the foreskin, of the penis.
Male circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin that covers the glans or head of the penis. Generally this procedure is performed in the hospital, with hygienic or sterilized instruments, shortly after birth. It can also take place as part of a religious or cultural ceremony after an infant boy leaves the hospital. In addition, some adult men are circumcised for medical, hygienic, or aesthetic reasons. While circumcision of men has been uncommon in Asia, South America, Central America, the Middle East, and most of Europe, it has been and still is fairly common in Canada and is routinely practiced in the United States. In the U.S., about 1.2 million infant boys are circumcised annually.
Female circumcision is a ritual cutting or alteration of the clitoris and/or the inner lips. It is most often performed for cultural or religious reasons on girls between the ages of four and ten years. The procedure is commonly carried out by untrained individuals in unsanitary conditions with rudimentary instruments (e.g., razor blades, broken glass, and/or knives) and without anesthesia, which is why it is referred to as female genital mutilation. Although FGM continues primarily in Africa and in small communities in the Middle East and Asia, it is prohibited by law in many countries around the world. Generally, when girls or women are circumcised, a portion of or the entire visible glans of the clitoris is removed. In addition, sometimes the inner lips (a.k.a. labia minora) are also removed and the outer lips are sewn together, covering the urethra and most of the vaginal opening, in a procedure called infibulation. FGM and infibulation can lead to frequent infections and cause many kinds of physical complications with urination, menstruation, and intercourse/penetration. The possible psychological impact of the procedure has been less well-understood. It is estimated that between 115 and 130 million women around the world have undergone these procedures.

This is why the procedures are different.

So there you go theory out the window that they are exactly the same, they are not!
I knew this from my studies in Nursing that the Mens penal Glands stay intact

As i said before the only reason this procedure is done on a female is to make her not have pleasurable sex so they take out alot of the glands and labia, vs only the foreskin of a penis.

[ShadyCharacter]

One of the most compelling reasons for the distinction is that female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation, FGM, is equivalent to the removal of the shaft, not just the foreskin, of the penis.
And no, I completely disagree with that, and would argue that it is a matter of opinion only. With FGM, you are not removing the vagina (the actual reproductive part), removing a vagina would be equivalent to removing the entire penile shaft - both of THOSE would be removing the entire reproductive organ.

[forbetoel]

Well lets take to the extreme then lets ban:

Lets ban ear piercings on babies, as we are mutilating their ears.
There has to be a line where the government should just keep out of parental choices.



Yes where do we draw the line?? Babie's as young as a few weeks old have their ears peirced.

[Verdi]

Hey you are entitled to your own opinions, but i totally disagree and would love medical opinion on the subject not some heresay about the procedure.

All i can say that surgically they are very different operations and involve different outcomes. There is very strong reasons for banning fGM but not male circumcision. IMO they are totally different.:)

4boystolove - you are right where do you draw the line?

[Pippi Longstocking]

Candyn, are you aware of the different degrees of FGM?

There is Type I: Clitoridectomy, Type II: Excision, and Type III: Infibulation
Type I is completely comparable to male circumcision - it involves the splitting or removal of the clitoral hood. Do you think we should be allowed to have this "parental choice" over our new born daughters? If not, why not?

[Verdi]

Yes i understand it all, but it is still different.

There is no benefits (medicall for any FGM) but for males there are/ can be.

All i am saying is that i don't think it warrants a ban i would be more concerned with child abuse and neglect.

[forbetoel]

Candyn, are you aware of the different degrees of FGM?

There is Type I: Clitoridectomy, Type II: Excision, and Type III: Infibulation
Type I is completely comparable to male circumcision - it involves the splitting or removal of the clitoral hood. Do you think we should be allowed to have this "parental choice" over our new born daughters? If not, why not?

This is a serious question, as I do not know, but... do females get infections in the hood of their clitoris???

[Pippi Longstocking]

This is a serious question, as I do not know, but... do females get infections in the hood of their clitoris???

I think the fact that the hood of the clitoris isn't unduly forced down would probably play a big part in the lack of clitoral infections. Most foreskin infections are caused by improper handling/poor hygiene practices/strong soaps/and the big one, forced early retraction.

Let me ask you this - if you had a daughter that did get an infection in her clitoral hood, would you have it amputated?

[forbetoel]

I think the fact that the hood of the clitoris isn't unduly forced down would probably play a big part in the lack of clitoral infections. Most foreskin infections are caused by improper handling/poor hygiene practices/strong soaps/and the big one, forced early retraction.

Let me ask you this - if you had a daughter that did get an infection in her clitoral hood, would you have it amputated?

No, because I havn't heard of anything medically to back up amputating a clitoral hood to stop infections, I thought girls were done for cultral reasons,(which is horrible) not medically,but my brother had shocking infections at the age of 11, and had to be circumsised, it was horrible, and he was very embarressed. I have 4 boys and would never get it done, just for the sake of it, but am well aware that for some parents the choice is taken away.

[Verdi]

I think the fact that the hood of the clitoris isn't unduly forced down would probably play a big part in the lack of clitoral infections. Most foreskin infections are caused by improper handling/poor hygiene practices/strong soaps/and the big one, forced early retraction.

Let me ask you this - if you had a daughter that did get an infection in her clitoral hood, would you have it amputated?

I have not heard of any cases of clitoral infection(if there is then it must be extremly rare) this procedure is done for cultural reasons (not even religious reason), but there have been many penile infections.Yes you might say it is due to poor hygiene this is most of the time it is not the case.Infections happen and there can be no explanation as to why

P.S boys willies should not be washed with soap:no: and should not be retacted for cleaning, you leave it alone and just bathe normally.

[Pippi Longstocking]

I have not heard of any cases of clitoral infection(if there is then it must be extremly rare) this procedure is done for cultural reasons (not even religious reason), but there have been many penile infections.Yes you might say it is due to poor hygiene this is most of the time it is not the case.Infections happen and there can be no explanation as to why So do you think people should be allowed to circumcise males for cultural reasons or just for hygiene?


P.S boys willies should not be washed with soap:no: and should not be retacted for cleaning, you leave it alone and just bathe normally.
That was kinda my point ;) Many people don't know the above and do those things which lead to infection which consequently leads to surgery that could have been easily prevented...

[Verdi]

Guvnor - i am obviously well educated with knowing how to care for willies - as boys are the only babies i breed, but i think alot of babies or boys can have infections for no known possible cause, even doing the right thing will most likely prevent Most infections but not all.

As for male circumcision for religious reasons, the reason for Jewish circumcision is because in the old testament God told the israelites that all male babies must be circumcised for hygiene reasons and thats why they follow the practice today, it is not meant for any other reason but for hygiene. So FGM is totally abhorent where there are NO reasons for it.

Look i will leave it at that, i do not circumcise, but if ever had to i will, although i think i am doing a pretty good job in keeping them intact.

Also mummies with boys never ever retract the foreskin for any reason, just to let you know boys foreskin retract normally at around 3- 4 years of age, also you should never pull the skin up to clean cause soap is the biggest problem with infections it disturbs the natural PH balance also, you may think oh it's dirty it actually isn't and that urine is very clean- Urine is sterile, anything else is not. I could go on and on, the nurse comming out of me:ecomcity:

I had a friend who's son had to be circumcised who told i don't know why he keeps getting infections there, i wash that area every night!
I told her straight you never touch it, she said no way you have to clean it, totally ignored my comments and continued to do it and then had to be circumsied, but hey that was one case i saw, that i knew it was definately cause mummy was not educated.

I can see what your point is Guvnor that mummies should be educated, but i still don't think there should be a ban or that mums should be made to feel they are not doing a good job.

Pre natal classes should be expanded to include penile care, and probably half of the infection rates will dissappear but there will always be a few who have infections due to imperfection and of no fault of the way it was cared for.

[PaperTiger]

but there have been many penile infections.

In comparison to........?

There are many infections of the appendix too, but I dont believe anyone would advocate removing the appendix routinely on the off chance that it may get infected in the future.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Guvnor - i am obviously well educated with knowing how to care for willies - as boys are the only babies i breed, but i think alot of babies or boys can have infections for no known possible cause, even doing the right thing will most likely prevent Most infections but not all. I also have sons. ;)


As for male circumcision for religious reasons, the reason for Jewish circumcision is because in the old testament God told the israelites that all male babies must be circumcised for hygiene reasons and thats why they follow the practice today, it is not meant for any other reason but for hygiene. So FGM is totally abhorent where there are NO reasons for it. The reason the Jews circumcise is as far as I understand it, is because of Genesis 17

Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. {he that is eight.: Heb. a son of eight days} 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
There is no mention of hygiene there.


Look i will leave it at that, i do not circumcise, but if ever had to i will, although i think i am doing a pretty good job in keeping them intact. Cool. I am glad you are doing a good job at keeping your boys intact. Me too. I don't find it particularly hard - I just say "boys, hop in the bath" and their foreskin care is complete.



Also mummies with boys never ever retract the foreskin for any reason, just to let you know boys foreskin retract normally at around 3- 4 years of age, also you should never pull the skin up to clean cause soap is the biggest problem with infections it disturbs the natural PH balance also, you may think oh it's dirty it actually isn't and that urine is very clean- Urine is sterile, anything else is not. I could go on and on, the nurse comming out of me:ecomcity: I have already covered the points about not retracting etc a couple of times. I think maybe you aren't reading my posts properly? Although I am not sure how you can say mummies of boys never ever retract their sons foreskins? I think you will find that quite a few do simply because they don't know any better.


I had a friend who's son had to be circumcised who told i don't know why he keeps getting infections there, i wash that area every night!
I told her straight you never touch it, she said no way you have to clean it, totally ignored my comments and continued to do it and then had to be circumsied, but hey that was one case i saw, that i knew it was definately cause mummy was not educated.
It's such a shame when little boys needlessly are forced in to circumcision simply because people don't know to just leave them alone.

[MotherNurture]

Previous thread: Are male and female circumcision the same? YES. Learn why. (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=118264)

[becca74]

As for male circumcision for religious reasons, the reason for Jewish circumcision is because in the old testament God told the israelites that all male babies must be circumcised for hygiene reasons and thats why they follow the practice today, it is not meant for any other reason but for hygiene. So FGM is totally abhorent where there are NO reasons for it.



not true:

i did a google to find out why: http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=568&o=2084384



Rabbi Shlomo: This is to teach a Jew from a very early age what we just discussed - that in life we are to do things that make G-d happy - it doesn't really matter if we understand it or not. In that way, we can transcend human abilities and have a relationship with G-d on a divine, rather than human, level
Rabbi Shlomo: reason 3)
Rabbi Shlomo: There are two primary reasons why G-d commanded us to place the symbol of our covenant on the male sexual organ: 1. G-d wanted this sign to be in the very part of the body which symbolizes pleasure. This is supposed to be a constant reminder to us that we should be focused on our special relationship with G-d and not get lost in life's pleasures and vices. Basically, we should always keep in mind that which is important and that which is quite trivial. 2. We place our sign on our reproductive member for we pass on our covenant with G-d to our children.

[HoopDeeDoo]

I have 2 sons, both in tact, and no infections :thumbsup:

[Verdi]

sorry guv i sometimes skim through posts as iam a busy woman.

Guv i was actually educating mums on here to not retract their foreskins, not that they never do. IYKWIM. maybe my preggie brain not explaining it properly.
I am tired i can't write anymore plus dinner has to go on the stove:)

[xkwzit]

This thread has strayed a bit from the OP, which was about infections. If you would like to discuss the religious reasons for circ or the similarities between male and female circ, we already have threads about that in this section (or feel free to start a new one).

Any further off topic posts will be deleted.

Cheers

[1+1=5]

i like my odds and thats the case with both of my boys. no circ, no infections.

[Father]

Did you circumcised your son AndrewJ?

Well. Now I'm really confused. We're you not dead against infant circumcision?

Or were you just answering a poll to skew the results??????

Very interesting.

[Father]

Here is another interesting answer.

Drbenroth has a circumcised son who has suffered repeated infections.

One only needs to read Drbenroth's posts on circumcision to also realise that she does not have a circumcised son.

So looking at the results - there are 2 x false claims of circumcised boys having infections.

Why the lies???????????

[bada]

I noticed those two straight away too father :laughing: But I'd guess the majority of votes are legit. Interesting hey.

[Father]

I noticed those two straight away too father :laughing: But I'd guess the majority of votes are legit. Interesting hey.

Sharp eye BBBB:)

It does bring in to question AndrewJ's integrity I would think.

What else is he lying about? Being a man? Being resentful that he is circumcised?
I don't want to accuse you of anything AndrewJ, but can you explain yourself here?

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Sharp eye BBBB:)

It does bring in to question AndrewJ's integrity I would think.

What else is he lying about? Being a man? Being resentful that he is circumcised?
I don't want to accuse you of anything AndrewJ, but can you explain yourself here?
People are entitled to change their mind about something.

If I had have had a son when I was younger I may have circ'd and be regretful of it now. I know my sister has one circ'd son and one uncirc'd.

[bada]

Nah, it's easy enough to click the wrong option. :)

[MimiGrace]

i voted the 'son-no infection' because i have a little brother, and he's never had an infection

(i can continue to quote family members if you like)

but i've done that in other polls. Just because its not 'my' child, doesn't mean i can't mention it :p (also it doesn't screw up the results in this case, cause the mother isn't on bubhub. so i'm just posting for the mum).

so i wouldn't be surprised if that IS the reason? claiming someone elses child (i can claim my ex-step son if people would rather? :detective: same thing though. he's not circed-no infections)

[Father]

so i wouldn't be surprised if that IS the reason? claiming someone elses child Why would he not claim his own child????
What is the point?

Awfully convenient. 2 x anti-circ members posting that 'their' children are circumcised and have had infections. You honestly don't believe this was a mix-up?

[reAllytee]

It is possible for a parent to have circ'ed their child & then either regretted their decision or found more info after the fact that made them decide it wasn't a good idea.

As I said in this thread earlier my DS1 was circ'ed at 3mths after multiple infections. I now know that it probably was a rash decision.

So when it came to DS2 I was not going to get him circ'ed under any circumstances. Then all his dramas happened & wow did I realise the difference to needing it to be done. He still has issues now after being circ'ed but there isn't much that can stop that when he has the issues he does but him being circ'ed does stop a lot of major issues. Sorry being vague don't really want to have to explain it all.

Anyways what I am getting at is I was very defensive as a first time mum who made the decision she did for DS1, I could not see how the decision we made was not really the best for him but I know I did the best I could at that time & that's all I can ever do. I do however now know that I would never circ again just because a doctor advises it or because I myself think I am doing the right thing getting it done.

As humans we change, we grow, we learn & the same goes with our parenting.

[Phyllis Stein]

Perhaps they were referring to themselves, Father? After all, if the poll was about discovering the extent of infection, their own experience would be just as relevant. There are lots of possibilities, including that they lied, I just wouldn't assume it was nefarious based on superficial appearances. :)

[Father]

AndrewJ?
Now that you're back on. Any comment?

[andrewJ]

about what

[Father]

About how your circumcised son had an infection.
I thought you said that no parent should circ their son - but you did.

[andrewJ]

I didnt. He is not my biological child
they do it in the phillipines, for some silly reason

[Father]

Can I ask what the nature of the infection was?
Hygiene?
Doesn't good hygiene prevent infections?

[andrewJ]

so i am a gay liar with poor hygeine.


i think its obvious now, that even you know you have lost the debate.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

so i am a gay liar with poor hygeine.


i think its obvious now, that even you know you have lost the debate.

:laughing::yelclap:

[Father]

AndrewJ.

Great story. The adopted parent one. First we've heard about that.
I thought you would've been ranting and raving at the fact that your circumcised had an infection. That would be a great argument to throw out there.

So 13 parents have had uncircumcised boys that have had infections.

The claim by all anti-circ members is that good hygiene prevents infections.

Which is it AndrewJ? What caused your boy's infection? Hygiene? It seems quite unusual.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

AndrewJ.

Great story. The adopted parent one. First we've heard about that.
I thought you would've been ranting and raving at the fact that your circumcised had an infection. That would be a great argument to throw out there.

So 13 parents have had uncircumcised boys that have had infections.

The claim by all anti-circ members is that good hygiene prevents infections.

Which is it AndrewJ? What caused your boy's infection? Hygiene? It seems quite unusual.
I would imagine it is his step son or partners child.

And wowzers 13 people who's sons have had infections. Do you know how many girls get infections?

Yes good hygene obviously plays a part, however a few infections is hardly worth getting worried about.

My other nephew had several infections, and they stopped after a while, he just had salt baths and some cream to put on. Hardly worth chopping bits off for.

[Opinionated]

It'd be interesting to have this poll done in a nursing home.

Why? I have recently been working in a nursing home and none of the patients had any infections. Infections are indicative of inadequate nursing and personal care, not disfunction in old foreskins.

Father, give it a break, stop harassing people. This is a parenting website, but I don't specifically talk about my children. I talk about parenting issues.

[Pippi Longstocking]

The claim by all anti-circ members is that good hygiene prevents infections.
.

Noooo. That's wrong on two accounts. Going by my poll (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=320250), bubhub actually does not have any anti circ members. Secondly, anti-RIC members have never claimed that good hygiene will entirely and completely prevent any chance of infection. The claim is that good hygiene will reduce the likelihood of infection (which is really quite basic) and that infections are generally minor and easily treated without requiring amputative surgery.

Once again, this seems to be an attempt at a character assassination and it is a dubious way of "winning" a debate. It really would be good, Father, if you could debate on the merit of your argument rather than by attempting to ridicule anyone with an opposing view.

[hailsntwang]

Ryder is intact and we have never had any issues at all.

[meegzz]

My son is intact and has never had an infecting as is DF... I don't believe in circumcision unless for a medical reason but definatly dont press my opinion on others a lot of my gfs with sons have had them chopped.. But my grandfather had to get circumcised at the age of 45 as hi foreskin was to tight and it did cause an infection! It funny that some people
think these infections are myths it does happen

[Prankish]

It is possible for a parent to have circ'ed their child & then either regretted their decision or found more info after the fact that made them decide it wasn't a good idea.

As I said in this thread earlier my DS1 was circ'ed at 3mths after multiple infections. I now know that it probably was a rash decision.

So when it came to DS2 I was not going to get him circ'ed under any circumstances. Then all his dramas happened & wow did I realise the difference to needing it to be done. He still has issues now after being circ'ed but there isn't much that can stop that when he has the issues he does but him being circ'ed does stop a lot of major issues. Sorry being vague don't really want to have to explain it all.

Anyways what I am getting at is I was very defensive as a first time mum who made the decision she did for DS1, I could not see how the decision we made was not really the best for him but I know I did the best I could at that time & that's all I can ever do. I do however now know that I would never circ again just because a doctor advises it or because I myself think I am doing the right thing getting it done.

As humans we change, we grow, we learn & the same goes with our parenting.

Circumcising the second son as the first was already done is a good decision because he would have grown up wondeirng why he was so different. I have known guys before where all the older brothers were done except the last brother missed out and grown up feeling inferior, ultimately getting a circ in later years. One I know, his mother was very apologetic for missing him out.

[BigRedV]

Circumcising the second son as the first was already done is a good decision because he would have grown up wondeirng why he was so different. I have known guys before where all the older brothers were done except the last brother missed out and grown up feeling inferior, ultimately getting a circ in later years. One I know, his mother was very apologetic for missing him out.

My 2 brothers are circd and both made the decision to NOT circumcise their sons. Same as my BIL who is a paediatrician. He is circed and didn't get his son (my nephew) done.

My older brother has 2 sons and at the age of 5, had to circumcise his older son. They didn't do their younger son just because the older one and the father is.

What a stupid reason to have your child circumcised...to look like their father or brother.

Children are more concerned about fitting in with their peers. Family shouldn't make them feel bad or inferior about their bodies, they should be the ones supporting them and it doesn't take much to explain why they are different.

[Fellow Traveler]

Circumcising the second son as the first was already done is a good decision because he would have grown up wondeirng why he was so different. I have known guys before where all the older brothers were done except the last brother missed out and grown up feeling inferior, ultimately getting a circ in later years. One I know, his mother was very apologetic for missing him out.

Ya right, just like kids worry about having different eye color, hair color, skin color, heights, and just about every other trait. :rolleyes:

[Father]

Opinionated:

Infections are indicative of inadequate nursing and personal care, not disfunction in old foreskins.

Pippi:

anti-RIC members have never claimed that good hygiene will entirely and completely prevent any chance of infection.

AndrewJ:

My circumcised son had an infection

So which is it? Hygiene. Or just something that happens? A condition that is more prone in the uncircumcised.

[Fuchsia!]

Even if it there was benefits with circumcising that they get less infections, is it still a valid reason to do it "just in case" Or even if they did get a few infections, again is it really a good enough reason to do it?

People get infections all through their life, different parts of the bodies for different reasons and of course they can be prevented by taking away that part of the body, but if we done that we wouldn't have any body parts left.

Its just not a good enough reason.

[Looshkin]

Women get infections all the time, in fact these infections are so normal and easily treated there are even commercials on TV advertising products to treat these. Yet an infection in a man or boy child is reason for surgery. One step further towards epic fail of logic is the possiblity an infection could occur as being used as "a" reason.
Come on this is a complete logic fail and the entire argument is essentially based on a lame " 'cos " foundation.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Opinionated:


Pippi:


AndrewJ:


So which is it? Hygiene. Or just something that happens? A condition that is more prone in the uncircumcised.

Those quotes aren't mutually exclusive. All can be accurate. Infections can be indicative of inadequate nursing and personal care. My comment still stands. What point are you trying to make? :confused:

Infections can happen, in the same way they can and do happen in other body parts. They should be treated the same way, IMO, and we don't routinely amputate any other body parts pre-emptively. Take tonsils, for example. People often suffer from frequent tonsil infections. They are usually treated with antibiotics. Only when it becomes an ongoing and acute repetitive illness do doctors take the tonsils. It should be the same for all body parts, including male and female genital parts.

[Opinionated]

So which is it? Hygiene. Or just something that happens? A condition that is more prone in the uncircumcised.

It's all of the above. Infections have numerous causes and there is many more factors than circumcision status. I would argue that a circumcised man with poor hygiene is more likely to suffer infections than an intact man with impeccable hygiene.