Just_A_Glitch said:
mike1921 said:
Just_A_Glitch said:
mike1921 said:
Just_A_Glitch said:
I wasn't circumsised when I was born. Instead, I got snipped when I was thirteen.
Gross story, my penis got infected. I don't remember all the details, but yeah. The doctors said it was because of the foreskin, so I had to get it snipped two days before Christmas. Tell you what, that was an interesting Christmas. Got extra presents. Overall, it was worth it. Plus the health and whatnot.
Since then, I've always been pro-circumcision. If I ever have male children, they will be circumsised, no matter what the mother says.
You have to got to be kidding me. You're going to remove a part of your kids' body because something went wrong with yours? Are you going to remove every other part of their body something might g owrogn with?
Also, please tell me you washed under your foreskin so at the very least you're not punishing your kids for your past bad hygiene?
Totally. If my arm ever so much as feels numb, I'm chopping off my sons as soon as he comes out of the womb. That's just the way I roll.
I'm just not going to let my son risk the same issue I had.
Why risk it when medically, its more beneficial to remove the foreskin anyway.
Lots of nerves on there, cutting them off would make sex much less fun when they're older. Also the chance of medical complications. And that doctors don't seem to think it's necessarily worth it?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/686 ? Oh, and that all you had to do after your infection was get it cut off? Really, you're cutting it off early just so there is no chance you have to get it cut off later?
Seriously, if doctors don't even unanimously agree the kid should get it, why can't you wait until he's old enough to decide on his own?
Hmm. I still enjoy sex just fine.
And no, I didn't just have to get it cut off. Lots of pills and ointments accompanied it. But that was the first step that had to be taken.
Every doctor I have talked to on the issue has either said they believe circumcision is the way to go, or said it doesn't make a difference. At most, 5% have said its better to leave it alone.
I'm going to assume you have not been curcumcised and was somehow offended by what I posted. If thats the case, I'm sorry. I've lived a good number of years both with and without being circumcised, so I can speak from experience that I prefer circumcision. It is what I feel is best for my hypothetical son, and you aren't going to change my mind on that. Sorry.
I assume you've never had sex before the circumcision?
........Pills and ointments? You're not seriously acting like that's a justification?
That really doesn't go against my point. They're not unanimous on whether to do it or not.
No, I have been circumcised and would really rather have those nerves back and take my risk of infection and it saddens me that it's going to happen to even more people as a preventative measure before they are even in diapers.
No, I had not had sex yet. And I guess I just don't understand where you're trying to go with on the "Oh, and that all you had to do after your infection was get it cut off?" argument you tried to make, because from how I read it, I was supposed to tell you what else I had to do along with cutting off the foreskin, but I was apparently supposed to justify something... I don't know.
And from my experiences, it was pretty unanimous. And it looks like you're just going to have to be saddened even more, because I've got my opinions and you've got yours. When/if you have children, you can do things your way, but I'm going to do them mine. I don't think removing that tiny extra bit of skin is going to hurt him.
Maybe if you had been infected and I hadn't, we'd be on opposite sides of the argument here, but whatever. I need to end this debate (that I honestly never saw coming) here and now. I'm currently working, and I actually need to do work. Good day.