Rule # 1: Leave your baby son's penis alone.
Rule # 2: If you are confused about something, please refer back to rule #1.
I'm sure this information will shock many Americans but I'd like to report that my intact son is now 4 and a quarter years old and doing very well despite the fact I chose not to chop off part of his penis.
He has not experienced a UTI. If he did, I suppose I would treat it with an antibiotic. Not even in the same ballpark of invasive procedures compared to circumcision. I'll take a pill over a scalpel any day.
He does not need and has NEVER needed me to "wash" it for him in the bathtub as some idiotic foreskinless pediatricians have recommended to some parents. His foreskin has gradually loosened from the glans due to his own passing manipulations, contact with clothing, etc. It does not need any "help" loosening. It's this kind of ignorance about foreskin care that leads to tearing, corresponding adhesions, and then the same idiot pediatrician saying, "You see all the problems this foreskin has caused? We need to go ahead and circumcise him now." Pediatricians are typically the most poorly paid and often the least informed type of MDs. Please remember their word is NOT gospel.
Also would like to note that my son has not caused anyone to get cervical cancer. Honestly I can't write this without laughing because this is such an inappropriate attack on foreskins in the first place. Men with foreskins don't cause women to get cervical cancer. Last I checked sex requires two consenting parties. If the woman wishes to protect herself from HPV, the virus that IF UNTREATED leads to cervical cancer, then she ought to
a) be choosy about partners
b) ask partner to wear condom
Circumcision is not the answer. If circumcision helps prevent HPV/cervical cancer how come the US reports 6 million new cases of HPV every year even though 77% of US born men born between 1932-74 are circumcised? If circumcision really works to help prevent AIDS how come so many circumcised men in America have AIDS? These are questions the American medical community just can't seem to wrap their head around. They're so busy trying to come up with research that, in their minds, justifies circumcision that they can't see the forest for the trees. People have been trying to justify circumcision as a means to treat all kinds of health problems for hundreds of years. The whole cervical cancer/AIDS bit is just more of the same. Millions of men in the world are intact and they live happy, fulfilling lives. Perhaps American docs are just trying to make themselves feel better about what they're missing! I think docs who do research on the benefits of circumcision should have to divulge their own "cut" or "uncut" status.
Now I want to be fair so here are two important issues people with intact sons have to address:
# 1: My son is the only person with worse aim at the toilet than yours truly. It appears the foreskin may interfere with aiming the stream at times but then again aiming may well be a problem that ALL boys, circumcised or not, deal with. I'm assuming he'll control this more deftly in the future. Being circumcised myself I have no idea. My wife recently broached the idea that maybe this was another reason the cleanliness obsessed Victorians got behind circumcision. Not only could circumcision cure masturbation, heck it could keep the bathroom cleaner.
# 2: Speaking of the Victorians...My son's been "exploring" his genitalia for quite some time now since he wasn't met with blinding pain every time he touched it as a baby like myself and millions of other circumcised babies. I have a feeling he may, dare I say it, masturbate when he gets older. (Merciful heavens!) Oh well. Hate to break it to the Victorians and anyone else repressed enough to care but I was circumcised and it certainly didn't stop me.