Registered: 1208517930 Posts: 213
Reply with quote #1
Pgell made an excellent point about the medical establishment promoting outdated, unnecessary procedures on women (like shaving, episiotomies, etc.) which got me to thinking. If there is any procedure that is truly invasive and completely outdated, isn't it circumcision? The foreskin isnt a useless piece of skin-also contains nerve endings vital to stimulation. In fact, in Victorian times circumcision was advised to help desensitize the penis and reduce self-abuse.
As simple and "safe" as this procedure may be, you are modifying the genitalia of another human being without their consent. They can't reverse this decision when they are adults. Of course, there are always arguments that an uncircumcised penis is harder to clean and more prone to infection, though in developed countries there is no hard evidence to support this. As my happily uncircumcised friend says, "I learned how to deal with that when I was 5 years old. It's called a shower." Needless to say, I am not in favor of circumcision (to put it mildly.) What are your thoughts on this practice?
Registered: 1254407069 Posts: 138
Reply with quote #2
I was cut as an infant. If I had sons I would not do it to them. I think it is ridiculous to do so unless there is a real problem that can't be solved otherwise.
Registered: 1224259648 Posts: 927
Reply with quote #3
I think the reason they do it to infants is because they probably couldn't catch healthy adult males. I have no problem being cut. It was dine when I was an infant. When I okayed it for my two sons it was because our family doctor said it more hygienic, easier to keep clean. If that's not true we should get the guys that are doing it, brand them as pedophiles, and circumcise them with a dirty knife like the biblical Jews did to their prisoners of war. That's my two cents worth. What do you think? HHH
Registered: 1208517930 Posts: 213
Reply with quote #4
Well Hank, it wasn't that long ago that the medical community advised women that formula was more "hygienic" than dirty, unclean breast milk. We are finally losing our morbid suspicion of natural body processes but we still have a long way to go. After all, if babies are perfect why can't we simply leave them intact? I like this quote from David Smith of NORM-UK:
"Whether you want to believe any of these things or not, you cannot deny that the penis is a personal part of a man's body, and that it should be for that man and that man alone to make a properly informed choice about having it surgically altered. As the penis is an adult piece of equipment central to sexual activity, it follows that this choice can only be made when the man is old enough to fully understand the implications."
Registered: 1209491476 Posts: 79
Reply with quote #5
I think its barbaric! Maybe 2000 years ago when Abraham was wandering through the dessert unable to bathe off that irritating grain of sand stuck in his foreskin there was a place for circumcision but in the here and now, with reasonable sanitary facilities, a man can wash his junk every day without any trouble.
Registered: 1213302813 Posts: 25
Reply with quote #6
Nothing says "I love you!" to your newborn like immediate non-anesthetic cosmetic surgery on his penis... As an uncut man, I have to say this is way more of a big deal between men than women. I thought it was weird when I was a preteen. Then I grew up and eventually just had sex. I've been with several girls since and NONE of them seem to care AT ALL. As for hygiene, see above post... "it's called a shower." A man's foreskin is no more unhygienic than a woman's labia. How about a labiaplasty for your newborn daughter? ...didn't think so.
__________________ I know what you're thinking... and yes. I have a name for my penis. I call it the octagon.