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".
Originally Posted by protonitron
it isn't mutilation or torture to circumcise a newborn baby
There's a difference between circumcision for a medical reason, and doing it because it's the social norm.
Your reaction to female circumcision should be your reaction to male circumcision too.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
We mutilate ourself to try to look better or to fit in or even just to make us feel more individual (piercings and tatoos). There are lots of tribal cultures which willingly do much worse to themselves (a lot of it to da sex organs). I am going to accept that circumcision is cruel because of the pain it causes. I geuss the not having a choice in the matter is the only thing which bothers me about doing the procedure to newborns. I mean, although I wasn't specifically asked whether it was ok for the surgeons to do the circumcision and even though I didn't even know that was a possibility when going into such a straightforward sounding operation, at least I was asked to sign paperwork first (although I evidently didn't read them before doing so).
And I am pretty sure it does have some health benefits and means you don't have to bother cleaning bacterial build up or whatever to prevent possible infection.
And I am pretty sure it does have some health benefits and means you don't have to bother cleaning bacterial build up or whatever to prevent possible infection.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Ele
Pretty sure, as someone said, the thought that circumcision gives medical benefits is a myth. It's a religious/moral idea.
Apparently science is a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Effects (Constant)
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-proc...e/prc-20013585 (2012)
http://www.today.com/health/circumci...ays-1D80331010 (2014)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health...ecommendation/ (2012)
Links provided in order of reliability.
Originally Posted by Xero901
are you implying that there's not a STD risk anytime you have sex with a partner multiple times, circumcised or not?
If you actually read the sentence, you would have noticed I said LOWER risk. Not "there is no risk".
Originally Posted by Xero901
It's also very traumatizing to babies, because the way they 'sleep' afterwards is actually passing out from pain.
I'll take a few seconds of excruciating pain and a lifetime of having to look at what a penis actually looks like underneath in exchange for some health benefits any day of the week.
Originally Posted by ynvaser
http://www.cracked.com/article_18840...-worth-it.html
Article was written in 2010 and it says that evidence was inconclusive. Using Google's "search within this time frame" feature, there is a lot less information on the subject and all from sites I've never heard of before, except Men's Health. (This was all found using the keyphrase "circumcision health benefits")
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I think you are talking about the studies from Africa?
Are you really going to have sex with someone who has HIV just because you are circumcised so you are 30% less likely to contract it?
Are you really going to have sex with someone when you have HIV just because you are circumcised so they are 30% less likely to contract it?
Yes, the African studies are the most accessible sources of information because the effects are seen quicker than in a developed country.
I won't be as afraid to have sex with them because on top of using regular protection, I'm additionally protected by not having this bacteria-trapping hood around my dick.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
There's no proof that this works in the developed world FYI, so you are even gambling with your gamble!
"We've only seen results in that group of humans. That doesn't mean that it works on humans that live over here."
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’'s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
Originally Posted by protonitron
We mutilate ourself to try to look better or to fit in or even just to make us feel more individual (piercings and tatoos). There are lots of tribal cultures which willingly do much worse to themselves (a lot of it to da sex organs). I am going to accept that circumcision is cruel because of the pain it causes. I geuss the not having a choice in the matter is the only thing which bothers me about doing the procedure to newborns. I mean, although I wasn't specifically asked whether it was ok for the surgeons to do the circumcision and even though I didn't even know that was a possibility when going into such a straightforward sounding operation, at least I was asked to sign paperwork first (although I evidently didn't read them before doing so).
And I am pretty sure it does have some health benefits and means you don't have to bother cleaning bacterial build up or whatever to prevent possible infection.
I have piercings and tatoos, and I think circumcision is fuckin weird. You're straight up remove a piece of flesh from a child, they should be able to sue their parents for such idiocy.
Also the health benefits your talking about are irrelevant since the invention of soap.
