Ears piercing for infant/toddler

[baloo]

Really ?

Sounds to me that people are looking for benefits to justify some old barbaric religious practice. If only it was piercing a baby boys ears, then it wouldn't be so bad.

[Fat Bob]

Truth, check out the wiki page on circumcision. It does hold that you have about 50% of the risk as an uncircumcised male in being infected with HIV. And that goes for other STDs too.

However, what are the underlying reasons? As yet, no one knows.

[Kooky]

It's amazing what I'll research rather than do housework. I knew circumcision was much more common in the US than the UK/Europe, but didn't realise it's quite common in Australia too. Quite fascinating, really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globa ... _Level.png

[baloo]

Truth, check out the wiki page on circumcision. It does hold that you have about 50% of the risk as an uncircumcised male in being infected with HIV. And that goes for other STDs too.

However, what are the underlying reasons? As yet, no one knows.

What were the reasons before the 80s then ?

Mutilating a baby's penis seems like a drastic way to save on condoms.

[Fat Bob]

Hey, I'm not being a proponent, it's just that you were ill informed about the potential health benefits. I'm sure you can wiki it to find out more info.

And kooky, how were you carrying out the research into circumcision? On the computer? Sure!

[Kooky]

Well I did have a big man called Ahmed here earlier

[baloo]

Hey, I'm not being a proponent, it's just that you were ill informed about the potential health benefits. I'm sure you can wiki it to find out more info.

I don't think I was ill informed at all. I did a fair bit of research into the practice about 4.5 years ago in an attempt to dispel the myths and folklore about the practice.

I found no reasons at all that made any sense whatsoever. STDs / HIV are silly excuses. Mutilate a baby's penis now so that in 16-20 years time, if he forgets to wear a condom and sleeps with someone who is infected, he has a less chance of catching something is really grasping at straws and looking for a reason to justify a barbaric religious practice. It makes as much sense as me using the counter that it's best not to circumcise in case you blow a fanbelt. Then you can whip the foreskin off and use it as a make shift fanbelt.

I was hoping you, with your medical / scientific background, had better resources than what I had when I tried to make an informed decision.

[Fat Bob]

We don't tend to use anything more exciting than things like Wiki. If we were going to any work in that area, then we'd have a look at the papers, judge the analysis, maybe even speak to the researcher.

And you never asked about making an informed decision, you asked about whether there were any health benefits. A reduction in HIV infection rates is a health benefit.

Making an informed decision, or having one placed upon you by religion or Government, that's a completely different thing!

[baloo]

Yes, but a reduction in HIV infection rates is more easily attainable than needing to mutilate a baby boy. Its hardly a health benefit that can justify the practice.

[Addadude]

Years ago I read an excellent book - 'Private Parts' by leading urologist Dr. Yosh Taguchi - which dealt exclusively with, um, male plumbing. In the book he was a pretty strong advocate of circumcision for male babies.

According to him there was a vanishingly small chance of penile cancer in men who were circumcised as kids, less health issues or complications relating to poor hygiene, less incidence of UTIs and, later on in life, sexual diseases.

The site below claims to offer a 'balanced, evidence-based appraisal of male circumcision'. (Although in the introduction it is pretty clear that the website author is pro-circumcision).

http://www.circinfo.net/

[baloo]

The case for UTI prevention is mainly in the first year of life, where a circumcised child has a 50% less chance on contracting a UTI. However, only 1% or less of uncircumcised males will contract a UTI in their first year.

Seriously, for some reason circumcision is an ingrained part of society and I just cannot work out how. All the supposed benefits could be better achieved by using soap and a condom.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a movement to ban this barbaric practice unless there is a strong medical reason to do so.

[Fat Bob]

But your question, baloo, was "what are the health benefits?" not "do the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the mutilation caused?"

So, is circumcision of boys a good or bad thing? Probably a bad thing.

Once circumcised, are there health benefits? Yes, there are.

As barbarism is a concept brought around by your ideals, which have formed due to your culture, then those things that seem barbaric, may not, in other people's cultures, seem so. And as Governments have been built upon cultures, then why would a government that holds the same culture as it's people want to stop things that neither the people or the government find barbaric?

It's a tough one indeed, but if you think that applying your culture and ideals on others is the right thing to do, then join a list of people that have tried to do that previously. And call yourself a dictator.

[baloo]

there are some health benefits of male circumcision....

You started the health benefits excuse, i just brought it to its natural conclusion.

The over the top "mutilation" and "barbaric" calls we're really just to highlight to those claiming baby ear piercing surmounted to child abuse etc that there are far far worse things in our society today that we accept, simply because it's part of our culture. Yet if you drill down a bit you may find ours are worse.

Personally I think circumcision is a weird practice to be performing in the 21st Century. There is no good health or medical reason for it today in a 1st world country where clean running water is available and good hygiene is available to all. If people are doing it for religious or cultural reasons then there is their justification. Wrong and it should be classed as child abuse in my opinion, but there are many religious practices that fall into a similar category.

[Tas]

With new kiddy winks introduced to the family recently, this topic has just come up re:circumcision. Quite interesting really. Our lot were proponents initially, they concluded, similarly to a few guys I've talked about it with, that it was what was 'normally done' for whatever reason were the practices of doctors in the 60's-70's and what their father had had done was repeated. Now we've sat back and reasked the why. Apparently in more recent decades it has become less common in Aus, and there are only a few doctors that will carry it out when you start to ask around. There is apparently one guy in Newcastle (Aus) that does carry them out, but insists all parents watch a video of what the procedure actually is first (Western Medicine, under anaesthesia). Apparently there are u-tube examples available - watching it apparently reversed the support, and the little lad is going to be left alone!!! In addition friends with little boys had very mixed experiences, one was fine, the second suffered a severe infection that they had major regrets over. One of the discussion points though that is less comfortable talking about in a public forum is the impact of size and shape of the adult appendage - there are some shapes/sizes/fleshiness that likely benefit from the procedure for either hygiene and comfort reasons, and maybe other medical reasons - but that is something that only can be worked out after a level of development, not on a little babies undeveloped form. So conclusion on that was at least leave that to be an adult decision.

On the earring thing, harder to comment other than with opinion. With our lot it was about getting to an age where the little girl actually wanted them and nagged and nagged and nagged and nagged until they were allowed to get them. I have several friends that never wanted them and have hole free ears. Personally I fall on the side of it being a choice for the kiddy wink, and of an age to care for them too. In my case that was at age ~7-8. And I love earrings, one of those people with bowls full of them and like to change them around a lot, but that's me, not the parents choice.

Shall we shift this to immunisation chat ????

[Satellite]

3 months.

Well... cultural? Some even have their nose pierced!

My Mil said she'd give me a smack if Miss Sate appears with tatoos. I told her it will only be fake ones.. henna

[SunshineAfterRain]

Brought my girl to pierce her ears when she was +6 months old.

I'm not keen in nose piercing and tatooing!

[Spike]

It's amazing what I'll research rather than do housework. I knew circumcision was much more common in the US than the UK/Europe, but didn't realise it's quite common in Australia too. Quite fascinating, really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globa ... _Level.png

Whatever the health benefits of circumcision may be, in my view it should only be done surgically, in sterile conditions under anesthetic. I watched it done on TV by a priest who sliced off the poor baby's foreskin with a razor sharp knife, leaving the baby traumatised and screaming in agony. The wound then became infected and the baby underwent many days of extreme pain and discomfort. That, in my opinion is barbaric, unthinking and unnecessarily cruel. The father, who only allowed it because of the mother's religious convictions, then swore he would beat said priest to a pulp if he ever chanced across him in the street. If anyone attacked my son with a sharp knife, I know what I would do.

[hupper124]

We waited until my daughter was 5 and we felt she really knew that she wanted them before we did it. If you are confident he can keep them clean and really wants them, go for it.

[sluggo]

If the practice was for men to decide to have or not have a circumcision as an adult I can guarantee that there wouldn't be many men circumcised. I am circumcised but have no clue why. Being a yank I grew up thinking everyone was circumcised (nearly all were in the US at that time). Its a pretty weird practice when you think about it.