Originally Posted by protonitron
As I mentioned in the post I deleted because it was gross, I was circumcised for medical reasons (not disease on infection, the foreskin was too tight or something). I actually went into surgery for it to be fixed...
So firstly, foreskins can be problematic and secondly, it isn't mutilation or torture to circumcise a newborn baby, they have just crawled out of a vagina and are probably too busy worrying about what happened to their umbilical cord to care very much about their bell ends condition.
Yeah, sometimes there's a problem, and it requires a fix, and circumcision's the fix. But, the wider myth though, that being circumcised is somehow more hygenic, or healthier, is just that, a myth.
It's certainly mutilation. Imagine explaining to aliens about why we cut of parts of our newborns' sex organs. "Oh, we started doing it because it pleases our god".
[QUOTE=hawkenightsmare]It's a health thing. circumcised males are at a much lower risk of getting urinary infections, having kidney issues because of these infections, are at a lower risk of contracting STDs from unprotected sex, and women with circumcised sexual partners are at a lower risk of these things as well. [QUOTE/]
Exactly what logic does that follow, if you weren't lazy as shit and roll the skin back like everyday to clean it, like you would any other body part those4 wouldn't be risks, and at what point is having an open flesh dick safer than having a hooded dick?
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
I don't think your sources are very accurate sir.
Exactly what logic does that follow, if you weren't lazy as shit and roll the skin back like everyday to clean it, like you would any other body part those4 wouldn't be risks, and at what point is having an open flesh dick safer than having a hooded dick?
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
I don't think your sources are very accurate sir.
Last edited by Velair; Jan 5, 2015 at 10:41 PM.
=
I'm strictly against infant or child circumcision, since it's an irreversible violation of the child's bodily integrity without a valid medical reason. Apparently circumcision confers some protection against STD's, but people don't become sexually active until well into their teens, and until that time aren't at risk of STDs anyway. Once the kid reaches the age of consent, he can decide for himself whether to have a piece of his penis amputated or not. I have a hunch most would opt out.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
Presuming that the results of a biological study hold no weight in the "developed world" because they took place in Africa is
a) really, really stupid
b) uncomfortably bordering on racism
It's not either of those things. People in less developed countries tend to have lower levels of hygeine and sexual health. That's why the medical effects of circumcision in Africa are far more acute.
It's a biological problem sure, but it's impacted by sociocultural factors too, which is why we see the difference.
People also believe in some African countries that raping virgin babies will cure them of HIV. Think I saw that one on National Geographic.
Pretty much this. I can understand the logic behind circumcision in low-hygiene areas though, not letting the dirt sit there can save you some infections.
It ain't racist if it's true.
Originally Posted by TheGod
if you live in a place where you can wash your dick every day with gallons of clean drinking water then any health benefits from having an exposed penis are literally bullshit
Pretty much this. I can understand the logic behind circumcision in low-hygiene areas though, not letting the dirt sit there can save you some infections.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
b) uncomfortably bordering on racism
It ain't racist if it's true.
