is this common for chinese babies?
if not, for those of you with half chinese sons do you circumcise or leave it au naturel?
can’t find any info on this
thanks for any replies 
Short answer: no, Chinese babies don’t normally get peno-dectomies. Neither do European babies, unless they’re Jewish or Muslim (defining “Europe” very widely here). Americans started doing this in the 19th century as a way (they thought) of preventing masturbation, so the male population there is about half cut and half uncut.
Today there are active pro- and anti-circumcision lobbies in the U.S.–the antis angry at being subjected to what basically amounts to involuntary cosmetic surgery; the pros citing dubious scientific research showing that circumcision prevents this or that infectious disease. I get the impression that the doctors are nervous that the antis will start coming after them with lawsuits etc., the way they do clitoral circumcision. And of course there’s the Jewish angle.
I don’t believe those statistics apply to people involved in committed relationships. Monogamy is the best way to prevent STDs!
Well, monogamy only works well if the two parties are STD-free going into their relationship.
Propaganda.
This information does almost nothing to help anyone who can afford the internet connection to read it. Unless of course the person is interested in the AIDS crisis in Africa.
I have full lenght off everything that is suposed to be full lenght and so do all my friends.
I don’t know annyone that had to cut annything and I did not hear about annyone having infections or whatever because off it.
How often do you think the cawe man had he’s willy washed? We are all stil here so I gues it did not turn blue and drop to the ground.
Annyone washing he’s tool once a week should do just fine and for the record I do every day.
Circumcision and Vegtarian has none or litle realation to health and should only be done if there is religious reasons for it and hardly then.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]
Leave the kiddies intact![/quote]
Yes.
Perhaps this was a dastardly ploy by baby oil manufacturers. I can only assume lubrication moves from something of an added pleasure to near necessity for the average pubescent (and adult 
) circumcisee.
Are there any statistics on relative sales of potential masturbatory lubricants in countries where circumcision is common/uncommon?
Pity you, you will never know the joys of a complete knob or what that dirty piece of skin can do for you. Remember, it was most likely there for a purpose.
Right, and while we’re comparing like for like, I suppose slitting the clits of women is fair enough too? I mean, in most cases grandma had it done, mum too. That pesky unhygienic bit of skin can lead some to have untoward thoughts you know.
Oh, and trust me, you may not recall it, but you most defintely squeeled like a pig when they mutilated you. I’ve seen it done. You’re not given pain killers, as the rationale is the doctor is swifter with the blade and it won’t hurt too long. Maybe, but damn those kids shriek. Once you’ve heard that, I doubt you’d ever propose mutilating genitals ever again.
HG
Nor will you konw the joys of a circumcised knob. 
Like your nipples? What purpose do they serve?
I dunno, why don’t you slit yours off and tell us if there’s any upside?
HG
Yes, I do see your point, but, more importantly, how do you justify mutilating your child’s sexual organs in your own mind?
HG[/quote]
Exactly. :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:[/quote]
Not exactly. He already explained that. . .
As anyone who has been circumcised as a baby knows, one has no recollection of it being done, one is not aware of any pain, discomfort, inconvenience or drawbacks of any kind associated with having been circumcised, one does not think of it as mutilation at all – on the contrary, it is likely one may see it as an improvement, as the elimination of a pesky piece of unecessary skin, making ones penis more attractive and hygienic.[/quote]
Yeah, and when I was little my old man told me that the cows didn’t feel any pain when they got branded and their nuts cut off, too, so I wouldn’t get upset.
That was also bullshit.
Wow, this becomes a bit gross… not the kind of posts to read by some -16’s…
I was even thinking NOW about circumsision being 40… What is the big deal?
Millions of people do it as their belief tells them to do it, and a few oher hundred thousands plan it for other reasons such as Hygiene, discomfort, levering up their sexual life etc…
I hope the OP gets some good response on his Question.
Forewarned is forarmed . . . or foreskinned as the case may be!
All intervention entails risk. Are you willing to unnecessarily risk further mutilating your kids knob?
HG
From wiki:
[quote]Risks of circumcision: Circumcision is a surgical procedure. While the risks of circumcision-related complications are very low,[60] the complications resulting from a poorly carried out circumcision, post-operative bleeding, or infection can be catastrophic.[61] Bleeding and infection are the most common complications of the procedure, according to the AMA, although in the majority of cases, bleeding is minor and hemostasis can be achieved by pressure application.[7] Kaplan identified longer term complications, including urinary fistulas, chordee, cysts, lymphedema, ulceration of the glans, necrosis of all or part of the penis, hypospadias, epispadias, impotence and removal of too much tissue, sometimes causing secondary phimosis. He stated “Virtually all of these complications are preventable with only a modicum of care. Unfortunately, most such complications occur at the hands of inexperienced operators who are neither urologists nor surgeons.”[62] Infant circumcision may cause problems such as skin bridges, when the cut skin does not heal neatly but attaches to the glans penis instead. This does not commonly require surgical correction; rather, a brief, simple, office procedure may be performed.[63] Meatal stenosis may be a common longer-term complication from circumcision. Recent publications give a frequency of occurrence between 0.9% in Iran[64] and 9% to 10% in the U.S.[65] Loss of the penis itself has been documented. The RACP states that the penis is lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[66]
The American Medical Association quotes a complication rate of 0.2%–0.6%,[7] based on the studies of Gee[67] and Harkavy.[68] These same studies are quoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[45] The American Academy of Family Physicians quotes a range of anywhere between 0.1% and 35%.[69] The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Canadian Paediatric Society bring the AMA results together with other studies with results ranging anywhere between 0.06% to 55%, and bring Williams & Kapila[70] citing that a 2%–10% seems reasonable.[46][66]
Fatal complications have been reported. The American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare, and cites an estimated death rate with circumcisions of infants of 1 in 500,000.[69] Gairdner’s 1949 study reported that during the 1940’s an average of 16 children per year, out of an estimated 90,000, died following circumcision in the UK. He found that most deaths had occurred suddenly under anaesthesia and could not be explained further, but hemorrhage and infection had also proven fatal. Deaths attributed to phimosis and circumcision were grouped together, but Gairdner guessed that such deaths were more likely due to the circumcision operation. [71]
Metzitzah b’peh without a sterile glass tube or pipette has been implicated in the transfer of HSV from mohel to child.[72] Eight Israeli infants, one of which suffered brain damage [4]and three in New York City, one of which died, contracted herpes after being given metzizah b’peh by mohels with the HSV virus.[22] “There exists no reasonable doubt that ‘metzitzah b’peh’ can and has caused neonatal herpes infection.…The Health Department recommends that infants being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b’peh” wrote Dr. Thomas Frieden, the Health Commissioner of New York City.[73] However, the mohel’s attorney argued that no conclusive medical evidence [5] linking the mohel performing the procedure with the diesease was supplied by the New York City department of health,[74] and the city’s case against the mohel was eventually dropped in favor of a rabbinical court ruling.[75] In May 2006, the Department of Health for New York State, issued a protocol for the performance of metzitzah b’peh.[76] Dr. Antonia C. Novello, Commissioner of Health for New York State, together with a board of rabbis and doctors, worked, she said, to “allow the practice of metzizah b’peh to continue while still meeting the Department of Health’s responsibility to protect the public health.”[77][/quote]
HG
Than the benefits should be posted also.
[quote]There are several:
1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon’s handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!
2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.
3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?
4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)
A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.
5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.
6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.
7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.
8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely[/quote]
Wasn’t trying to be deceitful.
By the way, basic hygeine takes care of almost all of those gains. Astonishing to think that all the upside is acheived by being just a little more attentive to cleaning. Now compare that to a dick that won’t work, or indeed a dead infant, if the slicing and dicing goes wrong, eh?
So we should let the muslims mutilate their womenfolk too?
HG
Yeah, getting it back can be a bitch!
[quote=“CIRP”]What is non-surgical foreskin restoration?
Non-surgical foreskin restoration is the re-covering of the glans penis by tissue expansion. Tape and weights, elastic straps, a traction device, or even manual stretching can be used to exert a gentle outward tension on the shaft of the penis to induce the skin to grow, to make the most of what was left after the circumcision.
Non-surgical restoration is inexpensive, relatively easy, and gives good results. It is not surgery, and it is not classified as a medical treatment.
“Tugging” is a common term for non-surgical foreskin restoration.[/quote]
And I found at least one account of a guy happy with reskinning.
[quote=“Rio Cruz on fathermag.com”]Well, like I said, Dr. Dean did get my attention. So I went on the web, dialed up 4skin.com/restore/niks4wen/, read what was needed and embarked on a year-and-a-half-long adventure to restore my amputated foreskin. And I must tell you boys and girls, if you knew what you were missing you would rise in arms against the bureaucratic quacks and lame-brained medical establishment that keep the practice going. Sex for me now, with a restored foreskin, is much more pleasurable, more complex, more intense, satisfying, interesting and just plain fun than it ever was as a circumcised male! There are subtleties and nuances of sensation I never knew before. There is a whole array of sensations and stimuli that come into play. Waves of Technicolor sensuality and outlandish orgasms that take me to the brink of coma. It’s like the difference between black and white tv viewed on a Sony Watchman, and full-blown, full-size color with stereophonic sound. Color tv is just more interesting, fun and entertaining. So is uncircumcised sex.
Well, actually, naturally intact sex is like full-blown color tv. There are lots of guys who went under the knife as adults and know the difference. Restored sex is more like those early color sets that came out in the sixties. Not as good as the tv today, but a damn sight better than a black and white Philco.
Not long ago there was some study published on the difference between sex practices of the circumcised versus the naturally intact. The main thing the researchers found was that circumcised guys had more, and more varied sex than did their uncircumcised counterparts. To me, this study made complete sense. When I was circumcised, I had to do all kinds of things, get into all kinds of positions, use all kinds of special effects just to get off. Banging on a toboggan at 50 miles per, doing it in alleyways at rush hour, doing it in the “Downward Facing Dog” yoga posture while swinging from a chandelier, stuff like that. The sex act by itself was simply not stimulating enough to lead to orgasm. It wasn’t as satisfying, either. With all the recovered sensations, feelings, sensuality and complexity provided by my new restored foreskin, I have no need to go through all those machinations just to come. Intercourse… just plain old, missionary position, normal, slow-motion intercourse is interesting enough.[/quote]
[The Joy of Uncircumcising] also looks like a book you might want to pick up and read through before you make a decision.
Maybe instead of getting him circumcised, it’s time for you to start “weight training.” 
What ever your decision ends up being, I’d recommend giving it a lot of thought before hand.
Wasn’t trying to be deceitful.
By the way, basic hygeine takes care of almost all of those gains. Astonishing to think that all the upside is acheived by being just a little more attentive to cleaning. Now compare that to a dick that won’t work, or indeed a dead infant, if the slicing and dicing goes wrong, eh?
So we should let the muslims mutilate their womenfolk too?
HG[/quote]
Neither I was trying to be deceitful , but it seems that the OP made up his mind already. Each surgery reflects risks, so this is not linked to this one alone. Balancing pro-s and con’s is appropriate, but I would let the kid decide by himself as suggested by Dragonbones. If there is no “need” but only “because everybody did it in the family” his son could overturn this for once and for the next generations.
And No, f’ course not, “mutilation” either male or female (as some African tribes still do on a barbaric way to remove the "pleasure’ point of their wifes) is a no-no.
[quote=“ceevee369”]Balancing pro-s and con’s is appropriate, but I would let the kid decide by himself as suggested by Dragonbones. If there is no “need” but only “because everybody did it in the family” his son could overturn this for once and for the next generations.
Agree, and the last one;s a very good point.
Female genital mutilation is a varied beast, in some instances only a pin prick is performed.
[quote]There are several distinct practices that are all usually referred to by this name. In particular, while female genital cutting is generally thought of in the West as involving the complete destruction of the female sexual organs in an effort to eliminate the female’s sexual pleasure, in some forms female circumcision is claimed to be analogous to male circumcision, in that both procedures can involve the removal of the prepuce and the frenulum.
In other cases, the procedure has no tissue removal at all, but is simulated with a knife as part of a ceremony, or with a symbolic drop of blood released with a needle. Those that involve tissue removal are usually divided into three major types.[/quote][/quote]
HG