There are a lot of choices that parents make for their children in order to give them the best experience possible later in life.
Yeah, some parents decide to beat their kids, or neglect them, or fill their heads with hateful religious and/or racist extremism. That doesn’t make it right.
The difference between infant and adult circumcision is huge. Did you know there is scientific research demonstrating that the nerves lost from the foreskin redistribute in an infant? That does not occur in an adult, so waiting until they are old enough to make a choice is way worse.
Or you could just, you know, leave it there in the first place. On the basis that like nearly all our body parts, it’s there for a good evolutionary reason.
You didn’t read the study either. It’s funny that all of you anti-circumcision pushers a) only spout the same old propaganda you can find with a simple Google search and b) misquote the actual research done (probably because you never bother to read the actual primary source). The study was done in Denmark, where 95% of men are uncircumcised. So this so called “conditioning” had nothing to do with circumcised men getting more action. In fact one could argue the opposite ;)
I have no intention whatsoever of reading a study published on a website calling itself a “Male circumcision guide for Doctors, Parents, Adults and Teens”. Is it not blatantly obvious that this might be just a tiiiny bit biased? Like the way people involved in a billion-dollar industry tend to be in favour of promoting that industry?
Female and male genitals are completely different. There is no comparison. If female genitals produced smegma and weren’t self cleaning organs, we could compare.
Oh you have got to be kidding me, haven’t you? I don’t believe anyone posting on a forum dedicated to sexual health can be that ignorant. The male and female genitalia are EXTREMELY similar. They’re made of the same tissues, for a start. They’re also structurally very similar. The clitoris and clitoral hood are exactly homologous to the glans and foreskin - in fact the hood and foreskin are known medically as the “prepuce” in both sexes. And yes, women can get smegma, or a substance entirely analogous at any rate.
But that’s neither here nor there. The “hygiene” argument is ludicrous because it ignores the fact that penises are extremely easy to keep clean simply by washing every day. I’m uncircumcised, as you may have guessed, and I’ve never had a problem with smegma because, like all mentally competent adults, I’m capable of washing myself properly. It’s not rocket science. Cutting off foreskins because a small minority of people are either mentally incapable of washing regularly or choose not to bother is like saying we should cut people’s arms off at the shoulder because a few people have bad underarm odour.
You probably aren’t from America, because here circumcision has very little to do with religion and more to do with medicine. Perhaps the body hatred is your own? Why else would you care so much about protecting people from something that 99% aren’t bothered by and maybe even prefer?
It has nothing to do with medicine or science. And now I hate my own body? Because I’m glad an important part of it wasn’t cut off for no good reason when I was a baby? Come on mate, you’re clutching at straws. The are no good arguments for circumcision. And the millions of men who are undergoing foreskin restoration or have joined an anti-circumcision pressure group - “intactivists”, perhaps you’ve heard of them - rather destroys the idea that no-one is bothered by it. Dickerschwanz in this very thread has described in some detail the harm that circumcision has done to his sex life. The only difference with infant circumcision is that men affected it this way don’t know what they’re missing because they’ve never had sex with an intact penis.