the empirical evidence says that it’s a useless cosmetic surgery done on children without their consent. So fuck that shit with a rubber hose
I don’t mind.
I would think since they use anesthesia the pain is minimal, infants heal quickly. And since most babies have this done within a day of birth, the infant body would still have natural pain inhibitors coursing through their bodies. I see little potential for trauma under these cases.
Imagine if someone invented a religion that required its adherents to cut the little fingers off their babies. Or earlobes. Or toes. The children of such a cult would be taken into care and at the very least the parents would be locked up, and any further children taken from them.
So why are babies’ genitals fair game?
Monotheism is evil, because it seeks to suppress human nature. Circumcision, both male and female, is designed to deaden the victim’s ability to enjoy sex, and is a vicious means of control.
Cool reply maia! I so agree.
I think the science from Freud on down says no. You hear the phrase “suppressed memories” all the time.
I think it’s an interesting question because on one hand my lady and I agree on the aesthetics of a cut cock; on the other, why should we as parents care about that? It’s kinda none of our business; if after he’s mature enough to know what’s up, he wants it cut, he can get it cut. So that’s what settled it, “uncut it is.”
Thinking about it in terms of it being a legitimately traumatic event for the infant just seals the deal further. Like - yeah, no way.
But there’s a differance in suppressed memories and literally not having memories.
Besides whatever you grow up with your used too.
I’m not advocating circumcision but I call out bs arguments when I hear them about being traumatic and disabling people from experiancing sexual pleasure, what a bunch of nonsense!
I’m fine with what I got but if I hadn’t been, I seriously doubt i’d be keen on getting it done now.
The whole school of thought in this argument seems to be really lacking in consistency and facts.
Most are not done for religious reasons. I consulted doctors and medical research. The pros outweighed the cons. The majority of parents do the same.
Circumcision is very, very rare in the UK (except amongst Jews and Muslims, though there’s apparently even a Jewish anti-circumcision society) and medical opinion is very much against it here too. This indicates, I think, that expert opinion is not immune to cultural influence.
Controversy is part of medicine. Countries always have their own views.
As a working parent I had to think about babysitters not being as thorough with cleaning as I would be. Penis infections would be more painful and traumatic then one quick surgery in a hospital under anesthesia. The surgies that have been done here since the late 70s are not full circumcisions , they are partial, enough is done to keep bacteria from building up. Any young man here that resides in the USA born in the 80s would be sporting one of these unless it was done under religious ceremony.
I can’t help thinking that all this stuff about bacteria and infection exists simply to justify a cultural, ultimately religious, practice, rather than the other way round.
Humans have evolved the way they are for a reason. The foreskin is there to protect against infection, rather than cause it.
I thought it was to prevent scraps on the sensitive tip, but we have underwear for that now.
Maia, have you heard about yeast infections or UTIs? Females are not the only ones to get these through poor hygiene. An infected penis can and does occur. It occurs more often in uncircumsized males. The foreskin is an incubator for bacteria abd germs it does not have antibacterial properties to any real degree. Especially in modern humans.
Just stay clean then.
Your interaction with little boys has been minimal hasn’t it?
It’s more the principle of the thing. Kids often have dirty hands, shoud we chop their hands off to prevent this?
You go right ahead and try. Explain its about principal to the cops and parents. Let us know how it goes. Start with baby boys in diapers. Daycare is a good place where there is one adult per 10 kids. Those baby boys are totally at fault for sitting in dirty diapers off with their dirty hands.
If you want to get ridiculous I can go there. If you would rather it remain civil and reasonably intelligent, I can go there too. Your choice.
I wasn’t actually suggesting we should chop their hands off, any more than we should chop part of their penises off. It was an analogy.
Sitting in their own dirty nappies seems to me a very good argument for keeping their foreskins, as protection. The skin underneath is mucus membrane, like the inside of your nose, and is not meant to be permanently exposed. If it is, it dries out and loses sensation.
The tip is not like that. The skin can and does open to allow urine and feces to get on the tip and sides. It is not impervious. Point is boys tend to poor hygiene and babies sit in dirty diapers. Girls get infections in their genitalia as do boys. Girls can have poor hygiene too. If making it easier for a boy to keep clean and free from painful infections is wrong then I prefer being wrong. As I said done under anesthesia as a baby is not traumatic. Penis infections are.
Now think of teens having sex. Horny teen boys are fairly stupid and careless. Hygiene is rarely thought of. A young girl with the beginning of an infection or poor hygiene can do some graphic painful damage to that incubating uncircumcised penis…
Human bodies are the product of millions of years of trial and error, and every part has a function. It was once common to remove tonsils, using the very same argument, namely, they could get infected. It turns out though that them getting infected actually serves a greater purpose. Without them, the germs can enter the body much easier, and a tonsil infection is much less severe than the alternative. Tonsils are no longer removed.
Circumcision is no longer recommended by the BMA and is no longer performed freely on the NHS.
If uncircumcised penises were really the health risk you imagine, then sexually transmittted diseases would be rife across the UK, Europe, and all other places where circimcision has been largely phased out. I know of no evidence that this is the case.