Circumcision

[Carina]

My dh and I have 2 sons and we have never discussed the option of circumcision. It never came up, as I guess it is not part of how we were brought up.

GOD BLESS

CARINA

 

[MyLittleWonders]

Does that mean you are a Jew who became a Christian?

Nope, we are Gentiles who became Messianic.

 

[Marie D]

Well I'm not a mother, in fact I'm not even married (though I am engaged) and I live in a country where circumcision as a preventitative measure isn't commonplace - but there's *no way* my FH and I would not get any future sons that God blesses us with circumcised. Here's why:

1. Although I agree that the NT says that Christians are not subject to the Covenant with Abraham under which Jews *must* circumcise their sons it's so clear from Gen. that God advocates circumcision that IMHO it's a good thing to do, even though it's optional for us

2. My fiance wasn't circumcised and when he reached the puberty and 'things started to grow down there' he had some very painful problems that led to him having to be circumcised, which was quite painful but more to the point both the problem that he had and the surgery were a very upsetting time for him. Someone else here said why operate on *all* baby boys to prevent *some* boys and men from needing operations later - IMHO it's because it's a smaller procedure when they're babies and also why expose someone to the risk of an infection or painful complaint if you could prevent it?

3. As someone else here has said, circumcision makes it less likely that a boy will discover masturbation and if he does, it will make it less satisfying and so less of a temptation for him.

 

[selune]

Given the high numbers of men/boys who discover touching yourself, I doubt that circumcision was a factor as to whether or not they started.

 

[Katydid]

3. As someone else here has said, circumcision makes it less likely that a boy will discover masturbation and if he does, it will make it less satisfying and so less of a temptation for him.

I completely agree, as a matter of fact, I was just thinking about this and felt I needed to add it. Immunizations are painful for a child and often times make them sick for a week or two. Most don't question using them as a preventative measure, yet, how common is it for a child to get polio. We are immunizing on the slight chance that the child MIGHT get one of these diseases, yet, noone says we are cruel for doing that. To me, it is a similar situation. We are preventing the possibility of problems by circumcising our boys, just like we are preventing the possibility of problems by immunizing.

 

[jazzbird]

I really don't understand this masturbation arguement. Boys are going to discover it whether or not they are circumcized. I suppose one could argue that it is more pleasureable when uncircumcized (I don't know); however, it is pleasureable either way, so either way they are going to want to explore. Circumcision won't deter that.

Immunizations are painful for a child and often times make them sick for a week or two. Most don't question using them as a preventative measure, yet, how common is it for a child to get polio. We are immunizing on the slight chance that the child MIGHT get one of these diseases, yet, noone says we are cruel for doing that. To me, it is a similar situation. We are preventing the possibility of problems by circumcising our boys, just like we are preventing the possibility of problems by immunizing.

Some people would argue that we should not be vaccinating our children. DH and I have been doing some reading on this as well, and at this point are very wary of it.

 

[Redguard]

2. My fiance wasn't circumcised and when he reached the puberty and 'things started to grow down there' he had some very painful problems that led to him having to be circumcised, which was quite painful but more to the point both the problem that he had and the surgery were a very upsetting time for him. Someone else here said why operate on *all* baby boys to prevent *some* boys and men from needing operations later - IMHO it's because it's a smaller procedure when they're babies and also why expose someone to the risk of an infection or painful complaint if you could prevent it?

I agree with this. Same thing happened to me. Not fun.

3. As someone else here has said, circumcision makes it less likely that a boy will discover masturbation and if he does, it will make it less satisfying and so less of a temptation for him.

100% Not True. If a kid is circumcised as a baby, he'll be healed by the time he hits puberty and will find PLENTY to do with his thingy.

Trust me.

 

[Marie D]

I really don't understand this masturbation arguement. Boys are going to discover it whether or not they are circumcized. I suppose one could argue that it is more pleasureable when uncircumcized (I don't know); however, it is pleasureable either way, so either way they are going to want to explore. Circumcision won't deter that.

Well I don't have any direct experience of 'men's bits' (I'm virgin) but from what I've read and learnt at school, plus what my fiance tells me, there are two parts of the penis - the stem and the end bit (glans), which is the sensitive part.
If a man has not been circumcised there is a flap of skin hanging over the glans so there's not an obvious dividing line between the two bits, so for instance when a man goes to the toilet he could touch the end bit by mistake, whereas if he has been circumcised his parents can bring him up not to touch the end part.
Also if he hasn't been circumcised he has to wash under the foreskin which means touching the end part, which could lead to lust and masturbation, whereas if he has had the skin removed there is no need/excuse to touch that part.

 

[jazzbird]

Well I don't have any direct experience of 'men's bits' (I'm virgin) but from what I've read and learnt at school, plus what my fiance tells me, there are two parts of the penis - the stem and the end bit (glans), which is the sensitive part.
If a man has not been circumcised there is a flap of skin hanging over the glans so there's not an obvious dividing line between the two bits, so for instance when a man goes to the toilet he could touch the end bit by mistake, whereas if he has been circumcised his parents can bring him up not to touch the end part.
Also if he hasn't been circumcised he has to wash under the foreskin which means touching the end part, which could lead to lust and masturbation, whereas if he has had the skin removed there is no need/excuse to touch that part.

Well, I mean, I understand that, but I just don't think it is a sound arguement because boys are going to explore and discover masturbation whether or not they are circed. Either way it will feel plearsurable, so it's not like they aren't going to be interested just because it may not feel as pleasureable as it would if he were intact.

 

[BeanMak]

I am sorry to disagree with you Marie, but I would have a GREAT deal of problems teaching a child not to touch his penis. Circumcised or not, washing should be done. Girls need to wash between their legs, as do boys. To not do that is just disgusting.

 

[Redguard]

Well I don't have any direct experience of 'men's bits' (I'm virgin) but from what I've read and learnt at school, plus what my fiance tells me, there are two parts of the penis - the stem and the end bit (glans), which is the sensitive part.
If a man has not been circumcised there is a flap of skin hanging over the glans so there's not an obvious dividing line between the two bits, so for instance when a man goes to the toilet he could touch the end bit by mistake, whereas if he has been circumcised his parents can bring him up not to touch the end part.
Also if he hasn't been circumcised he has to wash under the foreskin which means touching the end part, which could lead to lust and masturbation, whereas if he has had the skin removed there is no need/excuse to touch that part.

You're 16 and you have a fiance?

Anyway... forget what you read in your 'books' or what your fiance told you.

There is no chance on EARTH that a boy is not going to touch the end of his johnson just because his parents told him not to, or because there's no foreskin on it. Just because he's been circumsized doesn't mean that he can't wash it.

That's like saying women lust when they wash their nipples or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

 

[jazzbird]

I am sorry to disagree with you Marie, but I would have a GREAT deal of problems teaching a child not to touch his penis. Circumcised or not, washing should be done. Girls need to wash between their legs, as do boys. To not do that is just disgusting.

Definetely. We are doing our children a great injustice by telling them that they shouldn't touch certain parts of their body.

 

[Vilnius]

Well, I mean, I understand that, but I just don't think it is a sound arguement because boys are going to explore and discover masturbation whether or not they are circed. Either way it will feel plearsurable, so it's not like they aren't going to be interested just because it may not feel as pleasureable as it would if he were intact.

This is a touchy subject, and I certainly have unanswered questions myself, but I will try at least to bring a little clarity to the discussion and share my thoughts. I think there may be more common ground here amongst the posters than it may appear. This will probably be a little long, but I want to try to avoid any misunderstandings and be precise.

First, I think we need to distinguish between young boys touching themselves in exploration --or even for pleasurable sensations-- and older boys who have reached puberty and are masturbating. Everything I read says self-exploration of the genitals is the norm for young boys, and that it is not "sexual" as in involving lust, etc. Circumcision will not impact this exploration.The common advice I see from Christian sources is to tell them that it is a private place and if you want to touch yourself there you need to do it in private. And, as a previous poster suggested, if it is disturbing you find something to distract them from the activity. At this point it is not appropriate to suggest that it is "dirty" to touch yourself or to tell them not to touch their penis.
For older boys on the touching issue, a lot of guys are working very hard every day to avoid lust. Masturbation is a big issue for them. One thing they all know is that they really have to limit touching themselves because an innocent touch can in a flash turn into lustful masturbation. So, while we do not want to give young children a "complex" about touching themselves, even experts like Joshua Harris in his book "Not Even a Hint" recommends keeping your hands off your penis.

The situation gets more complicated with puberty.
When boys reach puberty they will be faced with the temptation to lust--and it is an extremely strong temptation. Some Christians take lust more seriosly than others. Those who take it seriously are concerned about masturbation because of the associated lust. Boys will quickly discover that masturbation provides much more of a thrill if it is accompanied by looking at lustfull images or with lustfull fantasies. The physical pleasure from masturbation provides extremely strong reinforcement for the lustfull behavior and the activity quickly becomes quite frequent and even compulsive. So how does circumcision fit into the picture?

First, we need to understand the physical effect of circumcision. The uncircumcised penis has a tubular foreskin that extends from about the mid-point of the shaft out over the tip, or glans. When the penis becomes erect the glans protrudes from the open end of the foreskin. The interior surface of the foreskin is simular to the skin lining the inside of your mouth or eyelids--moist and very slippery. The foreskin is attached to the penis at the base of the foreskin and by the frenulum on the underside of the penis near the glans. The foreskin can be manipulated in a sliding fashion back and forth over the shaft and glans. The glans of an uncircumcised penis is reddish or purplish, shiny and moist. During circumcision the foreskin is removed, leaving the penis completely dry and more of a skin tone.

As a previous poster said, circumcision will not keep a boy from masturbating. That is certainly true in my experience--I just found some form of lubrication, which explains why I spent so much time in the bathroom as a teen. I think that circumcision can only be helpful in reducing the temptation to touch for those boys who feel masturbation is sinful because of the lust involved. This is because circumcision complicates masturbation. The uncircumcised boy has a built-in masturbation device--the foreskin. It comes ready-lubed and slick and gildes easily back and forth over the glans providing very pleasurable masturbation. The circumcised boy will derive little pleasure from masturbating his penis unless he applies some form of lubrication--hand lotion, baby oil, vasaline, or soap and water. In other words, the uncircumcised boy's penis is always masturbation ready, while the circumcised boy first needs to find and then apply lubrication. So, I think it is harder for uncircumcised boys to resist masturbation because they are constantly tempted with a lubricated penis.

The sensations a boy feels touching his uncircumcised penis, or his lubricated circumcised penis, are vastly more pleasurable than if he is touching his dry circumcised penis. Boys often touch themselves unconciuosly(several times a day); touching themselves for several seconds before they even realize they are touching their penis. Obviously, the uncircumcised boy will have a much more difficult time keeping that initial unintentional touching from progressing to full blown masturbation because of the pleasure he feels . I can't confirm this, but one anti-circumcision testimony I read said that uncircumcised males even feel great pleasure simply from the erection of their penis as it expands against the foreskin (no touching necessary). For him this was a reason not to circumcise. But, given the tremendous struggle boys have with lust and their frequent erections, it seems to me that adding extremely pleasurable erections to the list of other sexually stimulating things out there makes their struggle much worse. Again, I can't confirm this, but I can confirm that we circumcised guys do not get physical pleasure simply from erection, and looking back at my pre-married life I am very glad I did not have that torment.

As a parent, if the purity issues of masturbation concern you, then you may want to consider that as one factor suggesting circumcision. If you do not plan on teaching your son that lustful masturbation is a sin, then that purity issue is not an issue and won't be used by you in your decision whether to have your son circumcised.

 

[Addicted2~Jesus]

I hadn't ever figured out th arguement "we gonna chop our boys so they don't play wit their bits" It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either, jes like th res of em folks are sayin, in fact, if'n a bodies gonna use that as an arguement, why on earth aren't ya gonna circ. your gals? I know it's possible have heard of it bein done an it's as pointless there as it is wit boys of th day IMO. God instituted circ. for th Isearlites, not cause they needed it er anythin, but to set them apart. A sign of th covenant, to distinguish em from other folks. Jes like when an alien would come among them, their males were chopped to be like them.

I have a hard time doin it cause folks think well that's jes what we do, if you don't know why your gonna do it, don't! Least not till you know why. As far as touching yourself goes... jes like th rest of em folks said, it'dnt skin er no skin gonna stop that from bein discovered er least not have heard of from some boys at school an what not.

You bet there's always th chance if you don't then fellers run into probelms wit thins later, but at th same time, there's those risks of thins goin wrong as babies an endin up wit destroyed or damaged thins. Th one thin that really stuck out in my mind was this here:

3. As someone else here has said, circumcision makes it less likely that a boy will discover masturbation and if he does, it will make it less satisfying and so less of a temptation for him.

We're gonna say to our sons, in order to make sure you don't have a pleasurable touching yourself experience, we're gonna also make sure that th 50 years after all this wit your wife is gonna be less pleasurable as well. I'm not willin to tell my son that... cause for a feller, least for me, I'd always be wonderin, well what is it I'm missin? Cain't find out none seeins how I cain't regrow skin, it'd be a whole other issue I figure.

 

[newcreature]

Both my boys are not. It is important that they learn, once the foreskin naturally detaches itself form glands on the penis, how to properlly care for it. At age three I showed my son how to pull back his foreskin and rinse it with clean water. He is six now and has had no problems. When they are infants, do not pull the foreskin back- this can cause infection. Hope this helps.

 

[kayd1966]

My son is, it was actually my hubby who encouraged it (I hadn't really thought about it much). He's reasoning was the cleanliness issue...he knew someone at work who wasn't and had constant infections and finally had to have it done as an adult . I'm pretty sure that every baby boy born to anyone in that workplace has had it done since that happened.

Because of Jesus!
KayD
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.
He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9​

 

[jazzbird]

Bump for Cool CD

 

[Cool CD]

I don't think circumcision is necessary. Someone said they were concerned with having to be circumcised at age 90. By 90 many men will have prostate problems. Should we remove prostates at birth so they don't have to deal with that.

I was circumcised but chose not to have my son done. I just felt that my son deserved to make his own choice on this. If there is any teasing I thought of a good line. "I can become like you any day I want to but you can't become like me again." When he is old enough to understand I'll talk about it and offer suppport if he wants it done. That's the best I can do, and if I had this talk and he didn't want to be circumcized there wouldn't be much I could do to to reverse it if I had already made him have it done as a baby.

I hope he appreciates it. I really went to bat for this course of inaction. I have been told that I might regret it and that my son will be mad at me if he has to have it done when older.

Parenting is not a perfect art. There are no guarantees everything will be perfect. If he wants or needs it done I'll explain my desire that it be his choice. On the other hand if I had him circumcised and he wanted it reversed what could I say? I'm sorry, but I had it done because it was a popular thing to do at the time you were born (what does that say when we ask our kid to not automatically follow the crowd, but to choose the narrow road). Or I could say that I wanted you to look like me (I am not that self absorbed).

 

[jusluvm]

I was so surprised to see this topic at the top of this forum this morning! Just this weekend we had a tough time with my 1 yr old grandson concerning this.

I had never taken care of an uncirc'd baby boy before my grandson, as all of my nephews were circ'd. When he was born, my daughter and her husband decided not to have him circ'd because his Daddy's not. Good reasoning, so we thought. Now, even his Daddy is wondering if they should have decided otherwise.

He went to the doctor Friday for his 1 yr check up and the doctor said that his foreskin was not pulling back like it should be. My poor daughter! (This is her first child.) She thought that she had done something wrong (or not done something right!) that caused this, but they assured her that she had been doing the right things for him and sometimes this just happened. (Anybody else here ever had to deal with this? I'd never heard of it before.)

So, the doctor had to forcibly pull back the foreskin. Poor baby! This was apparently very painful and left him so raw, sensitive and swollen. We've all had a miserable weekend, crying with him everytime we changed his diaper, holding him down, and pulling back his foreskin to put vaseline on him.

I guess all of this is really fairly minor, though. Not much worse than taking care of a newly circ'd baby. (I keep telling myself that and maybe I'll eventually believe it! )

The thing that really worries me is this --- how do you train a little boy to properly care for an area they don't "see" when you can't even train them to properly care for the areas they do "see"? I'm glad that's my daughter's job and not mine! I get to just sit back watch this time around.

 

[selune]

When we made this decision, we read a lot on it and I wonder if that doc. has. From what I've read you are to never forcibly retract the foreskin. By age 4 it should be loose enough, before that, just keep the area clean Some boys do not fully retract until about 10 and that is not a problem. Please encourage your daughter to look up info, because this should not be a painful experience for her son. Here is one nocirc site on cleaning, there are many others.
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/easy.htm