Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn’t have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.
Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn’t have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.
There are medical reasons to remove. If the foreskin isn’t cleaned well (challenging for toddlers) it can get infected which prevents it from separating, which is very dangerous.
If your foot isn’t cleaned well, it can get infected and potentially cause sepsis, which is very dangerous. Should we be removing children’s feet?
No, obviously not. The time for invasive, nonconsentual medical intervention is when it is medically necessary, and circumcision does not fit the bill.
“The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.”
“It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost.” - Meaning circumcision is quite a damaging procedure, which means the justification for it must be high. And as a preventive measure for which the things being prevented won’t happen for a decade and a half or longer, isn’t justified.
Newborns should not have their foreskin pulled back for cleaning, as the separation can cause damage. IIRC it’s only a bit before puberty that it is safe to gently (not forcibly) pull back the foreskin.
Nah mate. They had to remove mine because is overgrew my gland and was so tight that I would have pee between the foreskin and the gland layong around, and it was impossible to unhook. The alternative would have been to cut it open and have dumbo’s ear flapping everytime I’d take my dick out. No partner ever complained, and I don’t give à shit about it.
I wouldn’t circumsize a kid if it wasn’t necessary, but when an operation takes place specifically for medical reasons, it’s because there is no other solution. Like when a foot id so gangrenous that you have to remove it or it will propagate the necrosis to the leg.
Are you trolling? Or just finding it very difficult to understand what you are replying to? I’m genuinely asking here.
“Nah mate”, to someone saying it has to be a medical necessity… Following it up with “it was a medical necessity in my case”, and then arguing the same point of it needing to be a medical necessity… It’s just a bit too on-the-nose, that it seems more likely to be intentional, than just… Well, what it looks like
Being necessary for medical reasons is a good reason. Doing it because “it gets dirty” and “it looks better” is not. Unfortunately the latter is the most common reason.
until puberty starts the foreskin is attached to the penis. Just like how the finger nails are attached. It can’t get dirt under there until you pull it back.
Poor hygiene is not a sufficiently good reason to remove
I don’t know man. The entire world for most of human history has gone on just fine without circumcision. I’m eternally grateful I was not born in the US and was brought here as a child so I didn’t get my foreskin cut.
It’s always an interesting conversation with women. Some prefer it, some don’t, most don’t care. But it is a bit exotic in some areas of the country. Not so much in heavily immigrant areas.
For example California and Florida the vast majority of people are not circumcised. In Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, etc and other states in mostly white America it’s close to 90%.