That's the title of this article:
Fully agree: the age of consent should draw the line.
It is interesting that a CNN article that is fairly supportive of circumcision (in the sense that it mostly highlights the "pros" only) would put this question in the air. Anything just to promote circumcision.
In any case, the chances of intact teenagers opting for circumcision out of their own free are so miniscule that, in a twisted way, I would gladly take the very calculated risk and accept teenage consent if I can simultaneously have a ban on neonatal circumcision.
But no chance of that. In fact, one of the main arguments of the pro-circumcision crowd is to take advantage that babies cannot say no and cut them before they can object.....
In the UK, the age of consent is 16. If a boy that age insists he wants to be circumcised, he can - but his parents will have to pay for it, or he himself. The NHS won't.
Thankfully, very, very few ever want it. Goodness, why would they?
"Education is the discovery of our own ignorance." Will Durant
"Almost any manmade phenomenon i
I agree with you all - the age of consent should be the line.
18 without medical need is definitely the line in the sand.
The 'magic' age of 13 - a teenager! Long before the word was coined, I remember thinking that to be 13 years old meant I was no longer a 'boy'.
Sixteen is the age of consent in the UK - and some would wish it reduced to 14. I agree that most males with the ability and the freedom to make their own decisions would think twice, very seriously, before any decision to be circumcised.
"18 without medical need is definitely the line in the sand.
The parents should decide...if the parents
My youngest son was adopted from a foreign country where circumcision is not done.
A clearly expressed and non-confrontational post from you. Thank you.
However, I must ask you to consider that your "frequent UTIs" were caused by other matters than your foreskin. 'Tight' or not, your foreskin was most unlikely to have been the culprit. In the UK where boys are left intact in their millions, UTIs are conspicuous by their absence!
There is no proper foreskin hygiene - except to leave it alone. The penis is self-cleansing, would you believe? Why would nature make it any other way?
Yes of course any level-headed boy old enough to take in the ramifications of circumcision itself - and what he will lose in later life without a foreskin - should be allowed to make that decision. But in my opinion self-image alone is not sufficient reason for a such a life changing and permanent modification to his penis; especially when the CDC puts the current routine circ rate in the US at around 35%.