rae05

That's gross.


I will in fact be getting the baby circumcized if it is a boy. I don't want anyone to jump down my throat about it, but I do think its something that is acceptable. I am from NA though, and it is common practice here.

I just think it is cleaner, you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized, you're also less likely to get urinary tract infections. Its just something I feel necessary for the over-all health of my baby, both now and later in life.

carmen

O.k ... well obviously don t wanna be the to disagree with everyone, i do it religious reasons. But i know other people have said that it is much more hygenic, so it cleaner for the boy.

Also women have said that men with circumsion have cleaner and less smelling penises, obviously when they men.

don t everyone attack me though cos thats what i ve been told , for me its normal for men to have circumsion, and i must say they are extremley clean (tmi lol )

Vickie

This discussion has come up many times on the forum (and has been known to get very heated). And really a lot of it does have to do with regional differences/customs. Let's all try to remember that while stating our points of views

rae05

Cleannn, yes that they are. I would rather be with a circumcised man any day of the week, rather than an uncircumcised man. (Also TMI)

Kooky

If a guy washes properly then there would be no difference in cleanliness.

Uvlollypop

Quote:

Originally Posted by rae05 . you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized,

Im sorry but you are wrong weather you have a foreskin or not and you sleep around without a condom you will get an std! not having a foreskin wont save you

i understand that in some religions and country's its common practice

BUT if someone washed properly they wont have smelly bits, makes no odds if theres a foreskin or not.

i wouldnt pierce my babys ears because they cant say yay or nay let alone cutting a bit of its penis off! freedom of choice an all that

polo_princess

I completely agree and my reasons for having my child circumsised. Taking the whole idea into consideration from a male point of veiw of course. Prior to meeting my OH it was something id never considered

rae05

I didn't say it completely eliminated them, I said they are less likely. Obviously if you are having unprotected sex you are at risk for an STD.

What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases?
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of HIV infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.

What might this connection between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.


http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcis...cons/page4.htm


I'm out of this debate.

carmen

I think women who have been with a man sexually, that has foreskin and one that has'n t will definatley be able to tell the difference, i agree with rae05.

A man who hasn t got foreskin, doesn t go to the toilet and get a little bit of urine, behind i know that sounds disgusting but its true , foreskin traps alot.

Thats why my reasons for circumsion are for both religious but also other reasons.

Uvlollypop

seriously! oh my gosh again if men keep themselfs clean theres no issue, how can you say not having a foreskin offers some protection against stds...

teach your boys how to clean them selfs no need to chop bits off....