Cyllya wrote: "chances are his penis was harmed by his parents, doctors, and caregivers. If you spend twenty seconds educating yourself on proper penis care, all of those risks become non-applicable to your own child."
A woman posted on another board that her doctor had told her to retract the foreskin and swab it and the glans with rubbing alcohol. She said she finally stopped because of the screams of her child. I can imagine! The inner foreskin and glans is mucosal skin like the insides of the eyelids. Imagine putting rubbing alcohol in your eyes! She said that was the reason she was advocating for circumcision. She would not accept that the doctor had told her wrong.
"Many men who were circ'd as babies have overly tight skin on their penis that make it painful to get an erection."
Yes, this is very common. Most don't have painful erections but also don't realize another problem. This foreshortened skin sleeve doesn't allow them to have full erections. The entire penis is more than 50% inside the body. A tight circumcision can keep even more inside the body thus the man never reaches his full erectile potential. Men who restore their foreskins typically report gaining substantially in erectile length. Most report 1/2" to 1" but some report more than 1 3/4". Of course the men love this and I suspect their lovers value it.
"Sometimes the penis stretches down skin from above the penis, causing it to be abnormally hairy."
Yes, I've seen some awful pictures of this. Most circumcised men have some hair on the shaft. I remember one that had it all the way to almost the circumcision scar. The unreaized problem is that that hair abrades the vaginal opening causing sex to be irritating or painful to his lover. The intact man does not have this problem because the skin sleeve is not immobile. It can slide up and down the entire length of the shaft quite easily. This probably accounts for many women singing the praises of the intact penis.
"plus some doctors don't care if babies are in pain and therefore won't use anesthesia or won't wait for it to kick in, especially if the parents aren't present"
This is among the most disturbing things about infant circumcision. Doctors pose themselves as being loving and caring professionals. The latest survey shows that only 6% of newborns recieve pain management for the procedure. It is rare for them to allow parents to be present for the procedure. Wonder why? Maybe it's to keep the parents from seeing the inhumanity? So the parents won't tell other parents and ruin the carefully crafted personna of the caring professional?
"or won't wait for it to kick in"
Yes, doctors highly value their time. It is recommended that the analgesic be allowed 20 minutes to take effect yet many will immediately start after the injection and be done well before 20 minutes have passed.
"The reason people think it's better to circ babies is because they don't believe babies feel pain (hah!)"
You only have to watch one circumcision video to know babies feel pain. It was doctors who started this myth and they knew it was not true. As far back as 1980, research showed that infants feel pain more intensely than adults. A 3 year old will fall but will not break skin, bruise or show other symptoms of injury but will cry intensely in pain. That is evidence they are highly susceptible to pain.
"but by that logic, it's okay to violently abuse anyone under the age of two. In no other situation is it considered okay to inflict pain on someone just because they don't remember it"
In infants traumatic experiences permanently imprint that experience on the brain. This is the reason circumcised infants show more response to childhood injections like vaccinations. They actually perceive more pain and that perception interprets into real pain.
Parents who break fingers and arms, burn babies hands on hot stoves and do other things to injure their children are typically sent to prison. Judges and juries pay no attention to memories of pain but convict a parent or doctor for the intentional pain of circumcision? Not likely to happen. That is because most of them are guilty of doing the same thing.
"Also, surgeries to repair botched circs are more common"
Yes, it amazed me a couple of years ago when someone directed me to a medical practice whose specialty was correcting botched circumcisions. This made up more than 80% of the practice!
"Tiny Black Dot wrote: "but it looks like (according to the posts on this forum at least) that there seem to be a few complications that go along with it. If not why are there so many posts about it?"
That is probably a lot my fault. I found Mothering as fair and supportive. I actually sent mothers here to get answers. I didn't answer them in the forum where they were originally asking for information. I valued Mothering and wanted to build readership here so I brought "customers." The mother would come and get essentially the same information from multiple members here. In just a short time, the membership here virtually exploded and MDC became the "go to" place for answers. It also brought problems with leaving boys intact. HOWEVER, those mothers all got helpful information and for several years, none of those boys were circumcised even though a doctor had prescribed it. Not a single one!
"Then go read a forum full of parents who circumcised their kid."
Yes, there are internet forums that support circumcision. It is amazing the number of problems cropping up. Often there are no solutions to the problem or the problem is additional surgery. It seems the mothers who have circumcised are adamant that circumcision was only a related action, not the instigating action and even after their child has suffered, are willing to let him suffer agaiin. I particularly remember one mother who had her son circumcised, then circumcised again and yet again. A total of 3 circumcisions for one child! Never the less, she still adamantly supported circumcision and was ever trying to convince other mothers to circumcise their sons. She repeatedly emphasized how it would prevent a later circumcision. HAH!