No, it is not normal. It is also medically unnecessary, people who say otherwise don't know what they're talking about.
Aesthetically it is also a question of taste and of conventionality. Americans are used to most people being circumsized, so uncut penises look weird and potentially ugly to them. It is still completely subjective.
It can become necessary in certain circumstances, I'm not denying that. Just saying that cutting off a part of a penis whether there's something wrong with it or not isn't a good idea.
If there is an issue that can't be helped without surgical intervention - of course it should be done then.
I read it as you saying there was never a medical necessity, but on re reading, I can see how you must have meant the practice of doing it at birth. My bad.
It's the wrong way around. It's like saying: "Let's cut your breasts off, because you might get breast cancer." It does not justify cutting healthy ones.
By the way: most of these diseases are remediable by other means.
You said "It is also medically unnecessary". But that's not true as it IS medically necessary sometimes. Neither you or the OP said anything limiting the question to routine infant circumcision.
"most of these diseases are remediable by other means"
Sometimes and if you read the source it does say that. The patient can also choose circumcision as treatment if that's what they'd rather do.
IIN to surgically mutilate male sexual organs?
← View full post
No, it is not normal. It is also medically unnecessary, people who say otherwise don't know what they're talking about.
Aesthetically it is also a question of taste and of conventionality. Americans are used to most people being circumsized, so uncut penises look weird and potentially ugly to them. It is still completely subjective.
--
charli.m
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
My cousin had to get it done at 12 for a medical reason. Circumcision is not the norm at birth in Australia.
--
Unimportant
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Nor should it be the norm.
It can become necessary in certain circumstances, I'm not denying that. Just saying that cutting off a part of a penis whether there's something wrong with it or not isn't a good idea.
If there is an issue that can't be helped without surgical intervention - of course it should be done then.
--
charli.m
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I read it as you saying there was never a medical necessity, but on re reading, I can see how you must have meant the practice of doing it at birth. My bad.
--
Unimportant
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No worries, it was poorly worded on my part.
"Most commonly reported indications for circumcision include phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis without phimosis, condyloma, redundant foreskin, Bowen disease, carcinoma, trauma, disease prophylaxis (e.g., HIV infection), and patient choice."
http://www.drelist.com/reasons-for-circumcision/
--
Unimportant
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's the wrong way around. It's like saying: "Let's cut your breasts off, because you might get breast cancer." It does not justify cutting healthy ones.
By the way: most of these diseases are remediable by other means.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You said "It is also medically unnecessary". But that's not true as it IS medically necessary sometimes. Neither you or the OP said anything limiting the question to routine infant circumcision.
"most of these diseases are remediable by other means"
Sometimes and if you read the source it does say that. The patient can also choose circumcision as treatment if that's what they'd rather do.