reply to post by TinkerHaus
Circumcision, in my opinion, is not necessary. Any of the benefits the establishment claims are easily achieved by an uncircumcised male through good
hygiene and safe sexual practices.
I for one can confirm that. I'm not necessarily saying it should be banned, because i don't think it should, but claiming it as a medical necessity
is insanity and, honestly, irresponsible.
There are no medical benefits from doing this. Plenty of circumcised men are infected with various STDS, plenty of uncut men are unsanitary and
But there is a fact when talking about circumcision that seems to get left out quite a bit.
Removing the foreskin reduces the sensitivity of the penis by around 70%. Some misguided people seem to think removing the skin makes you more
sensitive. Well, yes and no, yes if you get it done later in life you will notice a difference. But in realty, you are removing nerve endings. You
are reducing sensations by 70% or more. It is supposed to be a membrane type material once you remove the foreskin, it changes.
Now maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think sex is a loving act and a sensual one. I see generations of young boys being brought up as "frak" machines,
there's no sensuality, no love, no tenderness, just sex with anything and everything. I do personally feel the lack of sensitivity changes the
dynamic. Much like wearing an extra thick condom does.
I'm not a parent yet. But, if that day comes, and it's a boy, unless they can show me an honest medical benefit from this (that can't be found
practicing hygiene) I will be voting NO on lopping the end of his junk off. I believe my wife would agree but who can say until it's right there.
Now I'd like to see a random sample study showing the infection rates of cut men versus uncut men. What do I expect? no difference at all. What
would I not be that surprised by? If the cut males carry more disease.
I'm not Jewish, there is no medical benefit, so I can't see a point at all.
edit on 5-10-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason