posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by slugger9787
Regardless of whether that connection can be made or not, a male shouldn't be mutilated because there may be an indirect connection to *possible
cervical cancer in women. With that being said, we aren't even sure that this is true, though a few (very small number of) studies have suggested
that women are more susceptible to HPV with men who have not been circumcised. This doesn't make it true, only that some studies may suggest such a
However, even if this is accurate, it is still not a valid excuse to mutilate the genitals of boys... or girls for that matter. A female should watch
and know who she is sleeping with or at the very least, she should use protection if she doesn't want to contract HPV. Males should not be mutilated
because girls may not be responsible. Should we also lop off the hands of children so they can't steal anything? What about cutting off the breasts
of women so they don't get cancer in the later stages? No, that notion is absurd.
Furthermore, it matters not the consequences of mutilation of boys versus girls. Mutilation is mutilation and taking a body part from a non-consenting
human being is all the same when it boils down. The mutilation of boys is not any better because that mutilation may effect them differently than that
With that being said, I have personally seen studies that suggest the circumcision of males does indeed effect their sexual performance, as the
foreskin does have nerve endings. I have also read that males who aren't circumcised can have more pleasurable sex, though that is besides the
As far as the poster who talks about Jewish circumcision. It's not only Jews. Most American males, whether they be atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish
or any other religion, usually get mutilated. I believe this goes for Canada as well. While in the rest of the world, it is only Jews in Muslims who
are mutilated, in America and Canada, it is almost ever boy. This problem is not only confined to Jews and Muslims.