Male circumcision is a good thing

Post Reply New Topic

I'll thank you to stay away from my dick ruveyn.
If I want foreskin that's my choice, just like its other peoples choice to get tattoos, or pierce any part of their body they wish.
Forcing a person to become circumcised as a baby is like....well as Shatbat put it, forcing all woman to remove their breasts and have implants.
Woman without breasts have a 100% reduction in chances of having breast cancer you know.

The real question here is, why are you so obsessed with what is in MY pants.
Also, should all men be forced to wear boxers?
I mean, they are better for your sperm count then briefs and your junk doesn't get as sweaty in them.
So that's a medical and a hygienic bonus.

i have no problem with people mutilating there genitals, as long as they are old enough to make that life long irreversible decision for them selfs.

How can one objectively equate pressure and pleasure. Pressure is objective. Pleasure is subjective.

ruveyn

so just to clearify here

your arugment is as fallowed

i like the looks more,

its reduces aids (based on bias studies in africa) yet europe has a much lower amount in the youth compared to usa and doesn't regularly mutilate there dicks. some how by investing money in sex ed instead of genital mutilation they had results.

it reduces penal cancer (which is rather rare to begin with)

if you dont wash it it gets dirty (funny thing is any thing you dont wash gets dirty figure that)

and at the cost of reducing pleasure by about 50% removing a part of the penis that protects the gland from physical damage and aids in intercourse, and removing the freedom of a individual to make the choice for him self.

imo your argument is week and your taking a lot for little return. im sorry but fashion isn't a good enough reason to mutilate peoples bodies with out there consent. if some one wants to make a fashion statement with there body they can do it when there old enough to understand the long term effects of it.

(unless your gay or bi, i dont think you should care about what other peoples dicks look like)

what i don't get is why this subject comes up again and again. i'm sure i recall this same thread almost verbatim from a number of years ago.

as others have noted, it is certainly queer logic indeed that posits the lopping off of body parts as a better means of achieving good hygiene than simply washing one's self.



regardless, it seems once again that the majority opinion is that circumcision is a thing that should be carried out on consenting adults making informed choices, that the mutilation of infants genitalia is a bad thing - notwithstanding real clinical need - and that common sense and rationality prevails among the majority of the posters in this thread.

Whether or not it's a good thing is irrelevant to the question of doing it to non-consenting children. People should have a right to their own bodies. If it was so beneficial then people wouldn't have a problem doing it as adults. Personally, cleaning a little extra seems preferable to amputation.

The AIDS stuff are all really flawed studies and even if it does reduce the risk in heterosexual African men, the overwhelming majority of AIDS suffers in the US get it from anal sex or IV drug use.

The medical literature is unambiguous: infant male circumcision presents demonstrable health benefits throughout life. Furthermore, the benefits do not accrue at a comparable level when circumcision is undertaken after puberty. That's not the question.

The question is whether these health benefits are--absent any other cultural significance--sufficient to indicate routine neo-natal circumcision in males. To my mind, they are not.

However, in circumstances where parents elect to have their newborn sons circumcised, the medical benefits suggest that it is incorrect to gainsay their decision.

My personal and my medical views are identical: this is a decision left to parents of newborn male children into which no one else should interfere.