Male Circumcision: for or against?

[Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 19:49
Last edited 19/11/2015 - 20:40 by 1 other user

A family friend , who also happens to be a doctor, is urging us to consider getting our son circumcised.We've discussed it with our pediatrician and he's of the view that our son would benefit from it.My son has no health issues, other than infrequent nose-bleeds which are unlikely to be resolved by having his foreskin removed.Also both of those doctors are biased: the first one regularly performs the procedure and the second one, is muslim.

My wife is strongly opposed to circumcision for many reasons but it really comes down to the belief that only the owner of the penis has the right to decide if he would like its appearance, structure and function altered by circumcision. Even though we are his parents, we do not have the right to make that decision for him. I agree with her.

What are your thoughts? Would you/did you have your son circumcised? Do you regret having/not having had the procedure done?

Cheers,
JJB

Poll Options

  • 124
    My son is/will be circumcised because the benefits outweigh the risks.
  • 22
    My son is/will be circumcised because of religious reasons or to look like me.
  • 92
    My son is/will NOT be circumcised because the risks outweigh the benefits.
  • 2
    My son is/will NOT be circumcised because the procedure is too expensive.
  • 470
    My son is the only one who has the right to make that informed decision.
  • 16
    Other
Health & Beauty

closed Comments

  • adamren on 19/11/2015 - 20:00
    +7

    Let them decide when they start to have sex. I didn't know they still did it much. It's strange how we rail against female genital mutilation but think it's fine to leave newborns, toddlers and pretend in pain for a few weeks.

    Not to mention the trauma that can occur even with anaesthetic. I couldn't put a baby boy in one of those tie down board frames to hold there legs apart.

    Apparently (on Oprah) there was a scandal about how they use the foreskins for face creams etc. So if they're charging for it, then it ought to be free, it's a nice moneyspinner. Maybe that's why it's still done?

    • zrach on 19/11/2015 - 23:11
      +8

      I can't believe we're comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation. They're a completely different ball field.

      FGM is done purely to control women, has no benefits and the pain usually lasts throughout the women's lives. Not to mention the urinary problems that come with it.

      With that said, since I don't have a penis, I don't think I should have an opinion in this matter.

      • QW3RTY on 20/11/2015 - 11:43
        +60

        I can't believe circumcision is still done at people's election. Unless it's causing you problems, or you have a condition such as phimosis (don't Google it at work, people) — cutting off a section of a functioning penis makes no sense.

        If uncircumcised penises were killing their owners via disease and infection, the gene pool would have been sufficiently modified by now and we wouldn't need to worry about it being a choice.

        I don't plan on mutilating either of my children.

        • RocketSwitch on 20/11/2015 - 11:50
          +41

          Yep, I would consider it to be male genital mutilation, which is exactly that.

      • Tyrx on 20/11/2015 - 12:30
        +1

        I don't support FGM in the slightest, but there may actually be some benefits to FGM that is very similar to what is advocated by people who are pro-circumcision for males. There was a medical study undertaken using data from 2003-04 that attempted to prove that FGM had no benefits for women, but instead they demonstrated that FGM actually reduced the rate of HIV in women by 50%.

        It was discussed quite heavily at the Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment in Rio de Janeiro. Unfortunately there hasn't been any follow-ups to the report because of how politically sensitive the issue is. The report creates an awkward position for people who support infant male circumcision yet argue against female genital mutilation. It's also worthwhile mentioning that much like FGM (which was introduced to promote virginity in females) male circumcision was originally designed to prevent masturbation in males.

        PS: If anyone is wondering what my stance on circumcision for males is, I would simply say that you shouldn't do it unless there's an absolute medical need. Using soap has the same effects as circumcision without the cons. Seriously. Just teach your kids proper sanitation. You can even treat phimosis with simple stretching in most cases….

        • eggnbacon on 20/11/2015 - 13:29
          +13

          Even if it turns out that FGM can reduce HIV infection rates in women, the cost in terms of pain and suffering during the procedure and throughout that woman's life would be a strong argument against it, especially since condom usage is exceedingly more effective.

          As a side note, just because you don't like what Tyrx is pointing out doesn't mean you down vote it without any thought.

          The study does suggest "a protective effect, real or not, of female circumcision", but the author herself states that there are flaws (several other risk factors not collected for the study) and that no biological mechanism seems plausible to account for FGM effectiveness against HIV infection.

        • syousef on 20/11/2015 - 17:37
          +14

          Yes when you wreck a female's genitals beyond all function, they no longer enjoy sex and don't catch HIV through that method of transmission. It's the equivalent of cutting off someone's arm to prevent them from getting RSI.

        • A Driver on 21/11/2015 - 10:14

          I was thinking exactly the same thing! So in that logic to stop the spread of HIV in men we should cut it all off?

        • Tyrx on 21/11/2015 - 11:46
          +7

          @msjacqui & @syousef:

          Uhh, I'm not quite sure you got the message of my post. I'm not supporting any form of genital mutilation in infants/children - including the politically correct word that we call "circumcision". I'm simply pointing out that people who say that FGM and MGM are "different ball fields" are completely wrong. Except for a few extreme Islamic nations, the majority of people in countries who practice FGM do it for perceived health benefits (not studied/confirmed in the western world due to anti-FGM laws and PR issues) and/or cultural reasons that don't involve women being brainwashed or controlled. There is no difference in ethical principles between those who advocate for FGM and MGM.

          People also tend to think FGM is done in barbaric conditions with some type of razor. That's the minority of cases - the majority are done in sterile environments with proper medical oversight. People don't even understand there's different degrees of FGM, and the vast majority of them lean towards the lower of the scale being Type III and and Type IV cuts which are less intrusive (still completely retarded to do though) compared to what Westerns think is the most common type, which is the severe first form. By comparison the Western world carries out one of the most extreme forms of male infant circumcision in history (what we have today doesn't reflect what Jews originally did) while thinking that such practices are acceptable and minor.

          Just to make this clear - The main concept I pointed out with my post was that western societies don't seem to think that health benefits should ever be taken in account when cutting the genitalia of healthy girls without their consent. By contrast Westerners undertake studies after study to determine what kind of health benefits infant male circumcision brings, and have continually increased the severity of male circumcision while citing said health benefits and ignored the impact-to-benefit ratio in the process. There's a double standard here, and it's rooted in prejudicial cultural influences.

          This is my main problem with this debate. Misconceptions are commonly stated and repeated. There are differences between FGM and MGM in terms degree of severity(no, just because FGM is more painful/has more of an impact than MGM doesn't mean that we should trivialize MGM as we do), but ethically (in addition to the attitude of their support base) there are huge similarities between the two.

          I've had my rant. Let the brain-less down-votes begin…

        • cannedhams on 22/11/2015 - 21:01

          @eggnbacon: the mechanism is the same for why male circumcision decreases HiV, the female clitoral hood like the male foreskin secretes lonergans cells that appear to play a role in HiV transmission.

      • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 20/11/2015 - 13:35
        +29

        Taking a knife to anyone's genitals against their will is just plain wrong regardless of gender.

      • Oliver on 22/11/2015 - 17:07

        I can't believe you don't think they're the same. It's mutilation for religious or other bullshit purposes.

    • YellowDieselGolf on 20/11/2015 - 11:37

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

      Worth a watch.

      • Megskins on 20/11/2015 - 13:49
        +5

        A slightly more academic view
        Child circumcision: the elephant in the hospital
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6axxuwljak
        This is very informative about the physiological aspect and shows the actual procedure which I recommend you watch so you may make a completely informed decision.
        As a side not I, like a lot of people on this forum think babies of both genders should remain intact.

    • oscargamer on 19/11/2015 - 20:02
      +5

      why?

        • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 20:08
          +39

          Then clean it? BTW, you don't piss out a virus and piss is quite sterile..

        • asianbargain on 19/11/2015 - 20:11
          +1

          @airzone: I didn't mean we piss out virus . The urine can't cause harm if it stay there too long and usually urine stay on foreskin after piss.

        • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 20:21
          +30

          @asianbargain: Same could be said for a vagina. So should we routinely cut them up? Or cut babies tonsils out in case they might get tonsillitis in the future? Or gall bladders? Damn, my family has a history of Glaucoma so perhaps I need to cut out my kids eyes so they don't have a chance to suffer the same.

          Generally speaking, most (civilised) people keep their young kids clean. And we teach our kids how to clean themselves as they grow up. It's one of those life skills people need, like getting dressed, cleaning teeth, driving an iPad, and keeping our bums clean after we take a dump.

        • 28kb on 19/11/2015 - 20:22
          +22

          @asianbargain:

          Please I can't be the only one rofl laughing from the above exchange?

        • oscargamer on 19/11/2015 - 20:25
          +4

          asianbargain is the only one who thinks boys can't clean themselves

        • asianbargain on 19/11/2015 - 20:27
          -5

          @airzone: i see what you mean , however, i still think male circumcision is better than none.

        • asianbargain on 19/11/2015 - 20:28
          +3

          @oscargamer: i didnt think they cant clean themself.

        • garetz on 19/11/2015 - 22:43
          +2

          @asianbargain: Is this your belief, or are your thoughts predicated on some kind of science that supports what you believe ? Just cause you think it doesnt mean it is the right thing to do.

        • johnno07 on 19/11/2015 - 22:44
          +1

          @28kb: This is one of the most incredible exchanges I've seen on OzBargain.

        • c0balt on 19/11/2015 - 22:53

          @airzone:

          Urine is most definitely not sterile. It's a horrible myth.

          Have you not heard of urinary tract infections? Regardless, there are many diseases that can be passed through urine that are not UTI specific.

        • ATangk on 19/11/2015 - 23:40

          @c0balt:
          Better than nothing sometimes, given circumstances.

        • rakerr on 20/11/2015 - 01:20

          LOL i'm right there with you….

        • Pyrock on 20/11/2015 - 02:09
          +3

          @c0balt:
          Urine is most definitely sterile.
          Urine is produced in the kidneys, sent to bladder then forwarded on. If any of these areas were not sterile then you would have big problems.

          It is the Urethra that isnt - thus urine can pick some things up passing through it.
          But in most cases urine is relatively sterile even after the urethra.

        • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 02:20

          @Pyrock:

          So what you are saying is, exactly what I said despite you disagreeing with me.

          Urine is not sterile. There's no relatively sterile, there either is sterile or bacteria infested. Urine is bacteria infested in even the most healthy of individuals. No person on earth has a urethra devoid of bacteria or viruses, however benign they may be.

        • EyyBanane on 20/11/2015 - 06:42

          @c0balt: What's your view on this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_therapy

        • Deridas on 20/11/2015 - 09:19

          @c0balt:

          Urine is sterile under normal conditions. You can't pick abnormal states (eg UTI or asymptomatic bacteruria) and then blanketly state urine is not sterile.

        • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 10:47
          +1

          @Deridas:

          No, even a healthy urethra contains bacteria that are not harmful.

          A prerequisite of the world sterile is a lack of of bacteria, that is the literal definition of the word 'sterile'.

        • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 10:48
          +1

          @gentlecrack:

          That's perfectly fine. I'm no germophobe, just don't go talking about how urine is sterile when the definition of sterile is to be devoid of bacteria or other organisms, and how non harmful bacteria is present in even a healthy urethra.

          Urine is not sterile.

        • Deridas on 20/11/2015 - 11:33

          @c0balt:

          I won't disagree with you.

        • chipstss on 20/11/2015 - 22:55

          @asianbargain: This is coming from someone with or without foreskin?

        • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2015 - 17:17
          +1

          It's amazing Europe hasn't been wiped off the map then, considering circumcision is actually quite rare there.

        • Overtime2000 on 21/11/2015 - 17:19
          +3

          @c0balt:

          So basically what you're saying is, that the urethra isn't sterile.

          I'm a doctor and Every med student knows, that normal urine is sterile.

          Of course urine can become contaminated from he urethra, that's why mid stream urine collections are recommended to test for bladder infections. To rule out contamination.

          If I took a blood sample without cleaning the skin, does that make blood inherently non sterile under normal circumstances?

          Urine inherently, like blood-is sterile

        • OzBugman on 22/11/2015 - 14:05

          http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(15)00206-7/pdf/-sterile-urine-and-the-presence-of-bacteria

        • Overtime2000 on 22/11/2015 - 16:36
          +1

          @iGarbanzo:

          you realise that is some opinion article with limited actual evidence. Its not a widely recognised fact that there are microbiota in the urine. Maybe, in years to come , that will change. But for now - urine is by definition - sterile.

        • hugh on 22/11/2015 - 18:49

          @asianbargain:

          There are a lot of germs and viruses under your nails.

          Please remove all nails from your hands and feet because you never know…

          P.S. I am sure Abraham bought/made nail clippers for his group even though this may not have be explicitly mentioned in your religious text.

    • EnALup on 20/11/2015 - 12:40

      What about cutting the penis. That way children wont have AIDS or other STIs in future. Best part is they wont reproduce. This thinking must be eliminated.

      • bargdebarg on 20/11/2015 - 16:26

        That's true, but you'd better off just not having a child due to the risk something will go wrong.

  • oscargamer on 19/11/2015 - 20:02
    +6

    what's your view on female circumcision?

    is it different from male circumcision?

    if so, why?

    • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 02:29
      +3

      One involves the remove of a vital sexual organ, the other is the removal of a vestigial covering that in the past was responsible for a multitude of infections when the ability for proper cleaning was unavailable.

      • RocketSwitch on 20/11/2015 - 11:53
        +4

        How was it hard to clean before?

        • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 12:37
          +4

          A lot of the world today doesn't have access to clean running water.

          The Western world didn't even have running water supplies pumped to certain facilities until about ~300 years ago (apart from Roman times), and only in the last 100-200 years has the majority of Western populations had access to running water in their homes.

          A bath used to be a luxury only for the wealthy.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sa…

        • RocketSwitch on 20/11/2015 - 16:03
          +1

          @c0balt:

          I see if we're looking that far back, thanks for the information.

        • RubenM on 20/11/2015 - 16:58
          +1

          @c0balt:
          Might sound a bit gross, but you can clean it quite easily by holding the foreskin shut while peeing and then letting it open to flush everything out. Home made running "water"!

      • Megskins on 20/11/2015 - 13:53
        +3

        Actually this is untrue. It is the forced separation of the foreskin from the underlying skin before it happens naturally that causes infection. Physiologically the separation to allow movement of the foreskin does not happen in boys till just before puberty. If this is allowed to happen then there is not an increased risk of infection.

        • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 13:56
          -2

          Google Balanitis and Posthitis. Both of these conditions are well known and can result in child or adult. There's heaps more conditions that I could list. Not only that but to suggest only those who had forced separation of the skin from the glans can experience foreskin related disease throughout their life is crazy, it takes proper maintenance and cleaning to prevent foreskin diseases.

          Don't say it's untrue when it is completely true. Have the common sense to at least google your incorrect statements before posting such misinformation.

          It's becoming a common trend amongst anti male-circumcision proponents to become combative and call common knowledge, medical conditions and scientific evidence untrue or false. It's almost like dealing with anti vaxxers.

        • Megskins on 20/11/2015 - 14:09
          +10

          @c0balt:
          Thanks. But I have done the research and I dont stop with a google search.
          http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/…
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4364150/
          And maybe watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6axxuwljak
          Just like so many procedures that are based in tradition it doesn't necessarily mean it is beneficial.
          But thanks for your unjustified and still incorrect refute.

        • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 16:25
          +1

          @Megskins:

          Those articles specifically state that circumcision does prevent those diseases, but that the possible risks of surgery may outweigh the benefits. No where do they mention about the forced removal of the skin from the glans as the reason for foreskin complications, something which you stated and I refuted.

          They were decent sources however about the potential negatives of circumcision. Here's a decent source about the positives.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/

          The youtube video however was a horrible source. I had to stop where he compared circumcision to foot binding.

  • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 20:07
    +26

    If it wasn't meant to be there, it would have evolved out already.

    • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 02:23
      +36

      Because evolution has taken care of the likes of cancers, impacted wisdom teeth, appendix, baldness, short/long sighted vision, horrible congenital diseases, mental disorders, colour blindness and more.

      Has evolution taken care of the hair in your ass crack that chafes when you want to run?

      What a silly argument to suggest evolution has perfected the human condition. The medical sector knows otherwise.

      • dealman on 20/11/2015 - 12:49
        +3

        Evolution is taking care of all the boxes things as well….

        A lot of horrible congenital diseases have been bred out of existence already.

        There are no scientific studies to say conclusively that circumcision helps with keeping diseases at bay? Can you share some links.

        • c0balt on 20/11/2015 - 13:24
          +4

          Boxes things? Could you please name a congenital disease that has been phased out? The reason we can't phase these diseases out is due to dominant/recessive genetics, or relationships with another genes that can prevent the required transcription factor(s) of a disease from manifesting the symptoms. Thus the condition remaining in the genetic code but dormant. It can still be passed on to the egg/sperm during cross over at meiosis which provides many millions of possible combinations for the haploid sexual cells. I could give you a more in depth run down, but I strongly suggest you read some introduction texts to genetics and evolution to grasp a better understanding of the processes that shape our genetic makeup across populations.

          A colleague of mine in fact has a condition called polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), left untreated she would not be able to have children and be in constant pain. Surely something as debilitating as this would have been selected against by evolutionary processes. But it hasn't, in fact many women suffer from this genetic disease (more than 10%) .

          Actually now that we can treat all of these congenital diseases, there is no real sexual selection pressure to reduce their prevalence across populations. We are actually phasing them back in.

          You should have at least searched for some articles before saying "there are no sources". Here is a list of some scientifically proven arguments for male circumcision to prevent disease; citing primary research journal articles within the text.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/

        • ArjaytheGuy on 21/11/2015 - 17:44

          @c0balt:

          Have you actually checked any of the articles cited in this article you're so keen to continue posting?

          a lot of the citations that most strongly "prove" the points the author seeks to make are well over 20 years old; and the other more current "supporting" citations are incredibly narrow in their focus "Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker C, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007".

          anyone can go on to pubmed and look for an article to prove their point of view; failure to perform some analysis of the information presented is not good at all.

      • andyfc on 20/11/2015 - 19:38
        +4

        Just FYI, ass hair is what stops the chafing….

        Yes evolution is not a great example, but the delusion is strong if you think it's a good idea to circumcise.

  • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 20:09
    +12

    BTW I have girls, and haven't considered mutilating their genitals…

    • asianbargain on 19/11/2015 - 20:15
      +2

      Circumcise on female is just insane … 😰

      • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 20:23
        +51

        Circumcise on human is just insane

        There, fixed for you.

        • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 20:37
          +20

          @asianbargain:
          You are taking somebody else's perfectly fine penis and/or vagina and you are modifying it for no tangible benefit other than to satisfy a your own personal misguided belief.

        • oscargamer on 19/11/2015 - 20:38
          +17

          times have changed asianbargain - leave him alone and teach him what soap and water is for

        • asianbargain on 19/11/2015 - 20:39
          +6

          @airzone: … i retract all my idea above .. . I alway thought white man often get circumcise but i see a lot people here disagree with that idea.

        • asianbargain on 19/11/2015 - 20:40
          +3

          @oscargamer: yes , thank you and youre right , im an idiot. . ☺

        • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 21:40
          +1

          @asianbargain:

          Have you done this? Or had this operation performed on you?

        • asianbargain on 19/11/2015 - 22:14
          +5

          @KaptnKaos: no and i don think i will after knowing a lot disadvantage

        • suicine94 on 20/11/2015 - 11:25

          @asianbargain:

          Are you a white man and you have the circumcision done?

        • pxrnm on 20/11/2015 - 13:44
          -1

          @airzone:

          What study behind this ASSERTION of yours????

          Quoted from c0balt comment earlier, This study showed the male circumcision is quite beneficial:

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/

        • airzone on 20/11/2015 - 17:12
          +4

          @pxrnm: RACP policy is that there is no significant medical benefit to being circumcised in Australia. And the American source indicates:
          - A valid reason for circumcision is that circumcised men are more creative in the sack and women find their penises more visually appealing? Please.
          - The benefits for HIV, which are cited against studies done in sub-Saharan Africa - may as well be on the far side of the moon when it comes to sexual health.
          - The primary disadvantage of adult circumcision over baby circumcision is "additional morbidity"… in the form of a sickie..

          Did you read it and find something of particular validity in Australia? Bearing in mind that we can have frank discussions of sexual health and education without religious interference? We have generally universal healthcare that is not as financially invested in pushing people into unnecessary surgery for private profit? And the civil tradition of circumcision in America was started by someone who felt that it was necessary to protect young boys from the evils of masturbation?

          But while we're talking about medical articles:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/ Vaccination causes autism
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4076896/ Here's a drug to stop your kid from masturbating
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310132/ It seems that there is no quantifiable evidence to suggest that homosexual men are taller or shorter than hetrosexual men.
          The point is that you can find an article to say anything you want, and yes the above are probably sketchy, but the prevailing attitude of RACP in Australia is currently that it's not warranted. None the less, I still judge it as barbaric..

        • Utopian on 20/11/2015 - 20:39

          @airzone: These blind posts stink of misguided beliefs. What science do you base your decisions on?

          Link-away. Means you'll have to find & read some first.

        • ArjaytheGuy on 21/11/2015 - 17:48

          @pxrnm:

          THAT's NOT A STUDY!!!

          FFS… if you're going to reference something out of a medical journal with any sort of credibility you need to know the difference between an article and a study.

          NOT everything published in a medical or scientific journal is a study.

          However: even the worst article in the weakest analysed medical journal would provide sources (as this one does) and SOME of those should be studies (which SOME of that articles references are.. it's just that they are very narrowly focused (so much so are to be pretty irrelevant in any sort of broader context) ro so old as to be incredibly outdated (if not outright contradicted by more recent and more effective research).

        • pxrnm on 21/11/2015 - 23:06

          @ArjaytheGuy:
          Sure, then please provide a "study" that showed keeping your foreskin is more beneficial than not. I'm open to see your sources.

        • ArjaytheGuy on 22/11/2015 - 00:43
          +1

          @pxrnm:

          How about the current position statement for the australian and NZ association of urologists?

          http://www.usanz.org.au/uploads/65337/ufiles/PDF/Circumcisio…

          There is a significant ingrained cultural bias towards circumcision in America (which Doesn't exist to anywhere near the same extent in other developed nations) it would be be oversimplifying things to suggest that much American "research" can be subject to a level of cultural bias… But that is worth noting.

          My comment was that that the arguments in favour of circumcision on medical grounds are not strongly supported by evidence; the risks however are well documented.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 20:26
      +9

      I have both: twin boy and girl. The missus view is that all forms of circumcision is genital mutilation. I wouldn't go that far, considering that I'm circumcised.

      • airzone on 19/11/2015 - 20:29
        +11

        Can't fault her reasoning. Think from your own perspective though: are you circumcised, and if not, have you had crippling penis disease? I know it's not a very accurate gauge of medical cause and effect… But would you really want someone lopping the end of your dick off?

        • Utopian on 20/11/2015 - 20:42

          Perfect knob? Well, any science that supports/doesn't-discredit circumcision must be forged.

          Lopping the end off?? Seriously? SO many people not even thinking here.

          It's not even genuinely thought about.

      • bargainslut on 20/11/2015 - 01:34
        +2

        Fair play. I must say i like these posts you create. They are very interesting topics.

        Thank you Jar Jar Binks:)

      • rodinthink on 21/11/2015 - 11:36

        Will the mutilation include the piercing of inverted nipple nippurru?

      • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 00:45

        You have twins! Wow. I have incredible respect for you and your wife. I can only imagine how that is.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 16:59
          +2

          Thank you :)

          I can only imagine how that is.

          Depends on the days: sometime it's double giggles and double cuddles, other time times, it's double mischiefs, double trouble. But always a double blessing :)

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 17:08

          @Jar Jar Binks:

          AWWWWW how sweet.
          Do you dress them the same?

          PS - We have actually communicated quite a lot over the course of my old accounts. I feel like I know you now. Besties!

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 17:30

          @Beethoven: Not really. They have the same eyes, hair colour and almost-there dimples but they are not identical. My son is growing taller by the minute and has recently started wearing glasses. We've always assumed that he was accident-prone ( he used to bump into things all the time) and it's only recently that we've realised that he is actually near-sighted. His sister has 20-20 vision.

          My daughter goes through phases: sometime she's a tomboy and will borrow clothes from her brother and other days, she'll be super princessy, and wear cute little dresses and get her mom to braid her hair.She's the loud, chirpy, hyperactive one too while my son, is the gentle, sensitive one. Most of the time, she's the one who would come up with harebrained plans (like climbing up a tree to save a bird) but my son, is the more courageous one, the one who will actually climb the tree while his sister is on the 'lookout' to make sure that mom and Da are nowhere in sight.

          Like I said, double trouble :)

          p.s: What was your old account?

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 17:47
          +1

          @Jar Jar Binks:

          Enjoy!

        • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 17:53

          @Jar Jar Binks:

          Send me a message please. I can't message you.

  • loulou1 on 19/11/2015 - 20:20

    I think if it were to be done it should have been done before age 6. Now I think you just leave it to him to decide when he is older.

    • [Deactivated] on 19/11/2015 - 20:28
      +1

      Why before 6?

      • loulou1 on 19/11/2015 - 20:31
        +2

        I meant, since your child is six, I think it is too old to do it if you were going to do it. My girl is 6 and I think they are more aware of their bodies and would remember the pain etc. It should be their choice.

        • oscargamer on 19/11/2015 - 20:40
          +7

          i can't even think of a reasonable reply to this

          it has NOTHING to do with pain and EVERYTHING to do with "IT's NOT YOUR (profanity) BODY, LEAVE IT ALONE"

        • loulou1 on 19/11/2015 - 20:47
          +2

          I totally get what you are saying. As adults we make choices for our children though that we think are in their best interests.
          I am unsure where I stand on circumcision as I have never had a male child and am not male myself and therefore have never had to make the decision.
          I am a sook when it comes to pain so that is the first thing I was thinking of when commenting,

        • moonphase on 20/11/2015 - 18:33
          +1

          There was study suggesting that the kids could get traumatized for the pain they received. Although they can't remember, it is there in their brain.

          I think it is better to leave the kid decide when they are grown up.

          Many people put FGM on the same picture but it is way different. The Biggest problem of FGM is how it is being conducted.

        • freakatronic on 20/11/2015 - 20:19
          +5

          @moonphase: The biggest problem of fgm is that it is being conducted.

        • Utopian on 20/11/2015 - 20:44

          @oscargamer: Parents make decisions everyday, for the well being of their children.

          Some choose one way, some another. Check the numbers.

    • srr on 20/11/2015 - 07:03

      I'd say either on newborn or let him decide.

      I've done it in the age of 19, first son in the age of 10 months and second newborn. Newborn was problem-free, myself was OK cause I was an adult and can have care myself, but for 10 month old it was hard to care after.

  • onetwothreefour on 19/11/2015 - 20:29
    +35

    Cutting off skin from a young child to reduce the risk of the child getting infections that they have only a small chance of getting anyway is just wrong.

    Mutilate your own bodies if you like but leave your innocent child's body alone.

      • onetwothreefour on 20/11/2015 - 12:38
        +12

        Not even close to being the same.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join