Serious thread people. :whip:

 

Is the US the only place where it is still routine to perform circumcisions on baby boys, or is it still the norm in other parts of the world?

 

I'm in Australia, and as far as I know it's pretty much dying out over here.

I have a son who isn't circumcised, and I don't think I was even asked when he was born. :thinking:

Also, as far as I know, the majority of my friends with boys didn't have them done either.

 

I'm personally against it, but each to their own I guess.

It's a common practice here in my country. For those kids who did not get them right after they were born, they get it around prepuberty (around 11 or 12?!). :|

Ouch. :freak:

So do the parents choose to wait until the boy is old enough to decide for himself? Or is there another reason why it isn't done until later?

Actually, in my anti natal class there was an Aussie guy married to a Filipino woman. They knew they were having a boy, and he didn't want him circumcised - but the wife won that one.

I don't really know. I think, it is actually more common here to get circumcised at a later age. I guess it's more of a tradition that should be done/followed. I don't think boys here are ever asked if they want to do it or not. You know, they just should. :shrug:

Oh ouch. :bomb:

I always assumed it was a Jewish thing ... I don't think it gets done on a regular basis here.

piniz haha

I always assumed it was a Jewish thing ... I don't think it gets done on a regular basis here.

That's what I assumed about the US too, but I've been informed by a friend that it's still pretty routine there - at least in the state she lives in.

I guess the father would want the son to look the same as him, and I understand you wouldn't want your son to be the only different boy in the changeroom.

But I still disagree with it.

 

Gee Reilly. The first male poster and that's all you have to say? :dozey:

Is circumcision 'sunat'? *Google translate* Yes it is.

 

For Malays, it is a tradition or something.

I Don't know of anyone here in the UK who has been circumsized

age 11 or 12 that sounds rather painful :stunned:

It should be illegal unless the person is a consenting adult or the child has a physical issue.

i always thought it was a jewish thing. i don't know much about the reasons they would have it done.

My two brothers are circumcised but i'm not sure if it's still done all over the country :thinking:

i always thought it was a jewish thing. i don't know much about the reasons they would have it done.

 

Religion, tradition, parents worried about peer pressure, to try to stop masturbation, for "hygienic" purposes. Basically for bullshit reasons. Female genital mutilation is even more barbaric.

I have it.

 

As far as I know there isn't any Jewish or Muslim background in my family. I never really asked my parents about it, but I guess it was made because of the health benefits they thought it had (lowering urinary infections, etc). I don't think it has brought me any problem in my life... so it's a really normal thing for me. And I don't think one can even compare it to female genital cutting which is clearly barbaric.

I have it.

 

As far as I know there isn't any Jewish or Muslim background in my family. I never really asked my parents about it, but I guess it was made because of the health benefits they thought it had (lowering urinary infections, etc). It has not gave me any problems yet... so it's a really normal thing for me. And I don't think one can even compared that female genital cutting which is clearly barbaric.

 

I didnt compare, I just mentioned it. Also your logic is faulty, urinary infections are rare, I guess they should remove kids tonsils and hey, why not remove all their vestigal organs incase they get complications later on in life, like the appendix for example... Its crazy. The foreskin is part of our anatomy and has an important role. If you like being circumcised thats fine but i think people should be given the option. I would be furious if somebody had removed parts of my body without my consent.

I don't know much about this issue, but I heard that for uncircumcised men it is harder to stay hygenic and keep nice and clean :embarrassed:

I don't know much about this issue, but I heard that for uncircumcised men it is harder to stay hygenic and keep nice and clean :embarrassed:

 

Well, that is the same as saying people with lips find it hard to brush their teeth :)

I didnt compare, I just mentioned it. Also your logic is faulty, urinary infections are rare, I guess they should remove kids tonsils and hey, why not remove all their vestigal organs incase they get complications later on in life, like the appendix for example... Its crazy. The foreskin is part of our anatomy and has an important role. If you like being circumcised thats fine but i think people should be given the option. I would be furious if somebody had removed parts of my body without my consent.

 

That's not my logic... that was my parent's logic and the logic from the scientific-medical community in the late 80's when I was born as they thought it was better for hygienic reasons... and it certainly provides a better protection against urinary and sexually transmited diseases.

 

And nobody would ever consider to remove babies tonsils since there's some evidence that they might be involved in their inmunitary response... unlike the prepuce, which doesn't have any clearly important function. So I think your comparision is faulty.

 

But I totally understand there might be some ethical issues related to it. I also think men should be able to decide wheter they want it or not. Fortunately for those who didn't have a choice (for cultural, religious or any other reasons), it doesn't represent any big problem.

Well, that is the same as saying people with lips find it hard to brush their teeth :)

 

:P

That's not my logic... that was my parent's logic and the logic from the scientific-medical community in the late 80's when I was born as they thought it was better for hygienic reasons... and it certainly provides a better protection against urinary and sexually transmited diseases.

 

And nobody would ever consider to remove babies tonsils since they're involved in their inmunitary response... unlike the prepuce, which doesn't have any clearly important function. So I think your comparision is faulty.

 

.

 

The Prepuce/foreskin doesnt have a function? Thats a ridiculous thing to say. Its also worth noting that children can die from circumcision.

Also your point was that circumcision was good because it lessens the chance of urinary infection unless im mistaken? So you think that its good to remove organs to prevent illness do you not?

The Prepuce/foreskin doesnt have a function? Thats a ridiculous thing to say. Its also worth noting that children can die from circumcision.

Also your point was that circumcision was good because it lessens the chance of urinary infection unless im mistaken? So you think that its good to remove organs to prevent illness do you not?

 

what's it function? I mean, its vital function? as long as I know, there isn't any... There's a whole debate about its functionality though.

and babies could die of it, just as anyone could die in any ambulatory medical procedure... I don't see what's your point there.

 

Once again. That's not my point. And I'm not saying I'm in favor of it... just mentioning some proven medical advantages of it. That's it.

I have never heard of any one getting it done here,

I'm pretty sure the rate is really low.

what's it function? I mean, its vital function? as long as I know, there isn't any... There's a whole debate about its functionality though.

and babies could die of it, just as anyone could die in any ambulatory medical procedure... I don't see what's your point there.

 

Once again. That's not my point. And I'm not saying I'm in favor of it... just mentioning some proven medical advantages of it. That's it.

 

Even if there was no function (which there 100% definately is) it still wouldnt be worth the risk of death. 100 baby boys die each year from this practice. Also there is no way the we would have evolved with a foreskin had it been a problem. There are no proven medical advantages.

 

“...the practice of routine circumcision rests on the absurd premise that the only mammal in creation born in the condition that requires immediate surgical correction is the human male.” Thomas Szasz, M.D.

Oh and i didnt answer what the role of the foreskin is. It’s first task, during infancy, is to protect the glans from infection by shielding it from bodily waste and other types of exposure. Throughout life, the foreskin is a protective jacket, which guards against trauma and injury. It also keeps the glans soft and moist. All mammals have a foreskin. It also has sexual benefits.