Circumcision status same as father's?

Myself, my father and my son, we all are uncut. Me and my son had some phimosis which resolved by the age of 11-12 without intervention.

@Kulemh Glad for you they left it alone. There seems to be a belief in physicians that things should be fixed at most at age 6, otherwise action is taken.

@Pecan_nutjob , I believe if phimosis in little kids is frequently complicated by infection, then its better to sort it surgically to avoid scars. otherwise no need to do anything until puberty.

My circumcision status is the same as my father's, we are both circumcised. I assume that my parents made that choice because it was common during that time and also so that I “matched” my dad. I haven't ever asked them why they chose that but those are probably the two main reasons.

For the time being anyway. I plan to get cut at some point in the future, ideally sooner than later if the surgeon's office would call me back.

The same status hight and tight i belive then was the only type of circumcision able in my state.

My brother's and I are circumcised like my father. I asked my dad about this once, and he said the doctors told my parents, to do what the father has. So it looks the same. His father is circumcised as well. And I guess that's just what they did then.

No, I am cut, my dad was not. He was foreign born, as were all his siblings (their parents were missionaries, if that or being foreign born had an influence.) I have no idea of my grandfathers' status. I did once see one uncle (dad's brother) naked at a swimming pool locker room. He and his sons were uncut as well. So I was a bit of an outlier, at least within my dad's side of the family. But, I was in the vast majority of my friends and school mates.

@John_Sitter Any idea why this choice?

@John_Sitter Any idea why this choice?

I can only assume, but it was the custom in the US of the 50's. Did my dad support the decision or was he overruled by my mom? I'll never know.

My father was born in 1896, in a remote western ranching community, was never circumcised, and neither were my two older brothers. I was my parents first child to be born in a hospital, the year was 1944, and for whatever reason I was circumcised just after being born. I never heard my parents discuss the reasons for that decision- I’d say my friends growing up and classmates were about half cut, and half uncut.

I am circumcised as was my dad. Don't know why. He is gone now as is my mom. Should have asked them when they were still around. Sorry now that I never did and missed that opportunity.

Yes hight and thight like my father

@Pecan_nutjob https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_of_Jesus

Same as my dad. Evidently when I was young that was one of the current "selling points" - "you don't want your son to look different from you, he might be concerned." I'm OK with it, but I'd probably be OK if I wasn't circumsised either.

My son isn't circumcised. There is no indication of medical need, therefore I am not justified in making the decision to do something. If he wants to later he can, but from everything I have seen it is an unneded surgery.

Same as my dad. Evidently when I was young that was one of the current "selling points" - "you don't want your son to look different from you, he might be concerned."

Sons look different from their fathers in so many ways, especially in ways that can be openly seen, like in hair coloring, hairstyle, facial composition, height, weight, length of fingers and so on and on.

So why even come up with this nonsensical idea that fathers and sons should look alike in a part of their body that is supposed to stay hidden from view in just about every normal situation?

Is this kind of rationalization applied to how their respective big toes look or navels?

But a penis is then supposed to be a big deal, a deal-breaker when it comes to look-a-likeness?

Same status however my circumcision was in line with the planned going up to boarding school, whilst my father was apparently circumcised on receiving an overseas military posting

My father born over 100 years ago was not. For those of us born in the 1950's it was 100 percent. The only intact friend I had was born in Europe and was circumcised at puberty due to problems. As sore as he was for a few weeks I'm sure he wished it had happened at birth. My mother was an OB nurse and quite progressive and I suspect did not fully endorse the practice didn't want her sons to be outliers.

A disturbing feature I keep seeing in all these genital cutting threads is kids being diagnosed with phimosis. Phimosis cannot be diagnosed in boy or men under 17 years old. When a male infant is born, the glans penis and the foreskin are fused together and are essentially one organ like a fingernail and a finger. Tearing apart those adhesions hurts about the same way as ripping a fingernail out of the nail bed. This creates an open wound which is at risk for infection, but it also creates scar tissue that may cause issues that later require genital cutting. Those adhesions dissolve and release naturally as the boy grows, usually around the time he becomes pubescent. But it takes longer in some boys than in others. Almost all men will be able to retract by age 17. If the man is older and cannot retract, then that should be considered clinical phimosis (Tellingly, urology textbooks sometimes refer to this as “True Phimosis”). If you were cut as a boy because of “phimosis”, I’d wager that you were actually cut because some doctor or parent wanted you cut for some other reason. Phimosis was just a convenient excuse and a way to get insurance to pay for it.

A boy should look like is father? In what family do fathers and sons whip it out and compare? Is this a thing, because I missed it somehow. Also, is it just penises or if a father loses a finger somehow, does the son lose a digit to match? What happens if the kid has different color hair? Spray paint?

As sore as he was for a few weeks I'm sure he wished it had happened at birth.

The latest research suggests that because an infant’s nervous system is still developing, infants feel pain much more intensely that children or adults. But your poor friend could at least say it hurt and ask for pain medication. And at least he could understand what was going to be done to him. Most infants probably don’t have these benefits. In fact, if you think about it, that “snip” is the absolute most painful and traumatic thing that has ever happened to that infant in his entire life.

A boy should look like is father? In what family do fathers and sons whip it out and compare? Is this a thing, because I missed it somehow.

Put this way, I have to admit that, even with all the wacky stories, accounts and memoirs here on Zity, this is something that I have not ever read about happening.

Just thinking about it makes me want to both laugh my head off and feel queasy at the same time ... ha ha ha

A boy should look like is father? In what family do fathers and sons whip it out and compare?

I recall a couple of posts of young boys showering with their dad and even touching their penis. So they don’t whip it out and compare, but showering together, or in a locker room, doesn’t seem wierd (except for the touching part) or that uncommon and would allow one to see if their penis looked like their fathers.

As far as whipping them out for comparison, nope! Same reaction as @agracier ! 🤢

Just thinking about it makes me want to both laugh my head off and feel queasy at the same time ... ha ha ha

Nope. My dad was born at home on the Kansas prairie in 1920. No circumcisions there. I was born in a hospital in the late 1940s. Circumcisions were the fashion of the day and both my brother and I were.

Sons look different from their fathers in so many ways, especially in ways that can be openly seen, like in hair coloring, hairstyle, facial composition, height, weight, length of fingers and so on and on.

So why even come up with this nonsensical idea that fathers and sons should look alike in a part of their body that is supposed to stay hidden from view in just about every normal situation?

Is this kind of rationalization applied to how their respective big toes look or navels?

But a penis is then supposed to be a big deal, a deal-breaker when it comes to look-a-likeness?

Because they're looking for a way to "sell" circumcisions. If you look over the years there have been plenty of very dubious "rationales" trotted out, from "you don't want to have your son get penile cancer" to the modern "Oh, but they have a greater risk of HIV infection!" (yeah, worry about that, but do something that works instead of just a circumcision - condoms, PrEP (is that capitalized correctly?) minimizing sexual contacts, whatever floats your boat. Once enough people see through one of them they come up with another.

I saw my dad naked now and then for changing rooms and other things. I don't think it would have been a big deal. I'm pretty sure my kid has seen me and he hasn't expressed any major concerns.

@JacobNC I doubt my mother wanted me cut for any reason! But physicians persuaded her. Keep in mind that medical information was less widely available 40 years ago than today and people trusted doctors. Plus, there was I think a kind of culture back then about cleanliness and getting rid of germs when it came to children. Mothers would nearly boil underwear in order to kill "germs"!

My Dad was not but I am.

My circumcision status is different from my father's and the same as my stepfather's. As I was born in Europe, I was allowed to retain the prepuce at birth, but after I moved to the United States, the prepuce has been removed.

My Dad was uncut and advocated against the recommendation of my pediatrician to circumcise me because of a minor case of phimosis.

Me and my father are both circumcised. He was done because of a complication when he was young and I was done as a preventative measure to avoid having to do it later in life like he did. But I also suspect that being born in the US in 90s made the decision that much easier.