Circumcision is an issue a lot like Gun Rights; I don’t see how somebody can still be on one side after doing any amount of research. The medical benefits of circumcising children are almost nonexistent outside of a few outlier conditions where the foreskin is improperly developed, and it can lead to ongoing loss of sensation and is unnecessarily traumatic for children.
I've literally got into arguments about circumcision where the other person claimed I don't know how sex works because I mentioned the mechanical benefits of a foreskin despite me having a foreskin and them not. The thought of having been maimed at birth by your parents is not an easy pill to swallow.
They're good people who thought they were making the correct decision, and they were wrong.
Not that hard to come to terms with. By the time men start thinking about this, they should be capable of understanding that their parents are human beings, not infallible.
Well, look what you're offering, and look what you're asking.
As you said, the payment for agreeing with you is that they accept, basically out of the blue, that their parents "maimed them at birth."
What you're offering, the boon and reward, is that they can observe their dick, which they can literally look down upon, tug a bit, and say "Seems fine to me," is actually mutilated.
Gotta say, that's not much of an incentive. Like I said, they can literally look down at their own dick, and think about their experiences with their dick, and it's going to be pretty hard to convince them that they're impaired and the people who raised them harmed them grievously. If they have children, they can think about their dick, and how that dick has basically one purpose, which is to produce children; then look back and forth between their dick and their children, then look at you, who's telling them their dick don't work because their parents are monsters, and...
Surely, you see at least a little why this argument ain't working.
this. thousands of years ago, circumcision historically was done for a few reasons...
it was cleaner and reduced infections... as daily bathing was more rare, not having a flap meant not getting gunk built up under the flap, meant less infections
it supposedly desensitizes the head, allowing the guy to last longer in bed.
it was thought to reduce masturbation, because reasons
with one religion in particular, the "practitioner" literally removes it with his mouth. sometimes he even eats it.
compared to today's circumstances, if you're not doing it for a serious medical issue, you shouldn't do it.
oh, and some guys get cut so tight, that it literally restricts how big you can get during an erection. assuming you have good blood pressure, and the internal tendon (or whatever it's called) isn't excessively short, your erection can be bigger when you're uncircumcised. i'm not a monster or anything, but a couple of girls have even commented on it... they didn't even realize i was uncircumcised until after i wasn't hard anymore.
Circumcision is an issue a lot like Gun Rights; I don’t see how somebody can still be on one side after doing any amount of research. The medical benefits of circumcising children are almost nonexistent outside of a few outlier conditions where the foreskin is improperly developed, and it can lead to ongoing loss of sensation and is unnecessarily traumatic for children.
If you’re in favor or neutral about Circumsision then just watch this : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FCuy163srRc
Eric Clopper is kind of crazy but I guarantee he’ll change your mind.
Whoa. It's two hours.
I've literally got into arguments about circumcision where the other person claimed I don't know how sex works because I mentioned the mechanical benefits of a foreskin despite me having a foreskin and them not. The thought of having been maimed at birth by your parents is not an easy pill to swallow.
They're good people who thought they were making the correct decision, and they were wrong.
Not that hard to come to terms with. By the time men start thinking about this, they should be capable of understanding that their parents are human beings, not infallible.
Well, look what you're offering, and look what you're asking.
As you said, the payment for agreeing with you is that they accept, basically out of the blue, that their parents "maimed them at birth."
What you're offering, the boon and reward, is that they can observe their dick, which they can literally look down upon, tug a bit, and say "Seems fine to me," is actually mutilated.
What's the incentive in this scenario?
That they won't maim their children- or if they already have children that they can advise them not to main their children.
Gotta say, that's not much of an incentive. Like I said, they can literally look down at their own dick, and think about their experiences with their dick, and it's going to be pretty hard to convince them that they're impaired and the people who raised them harmed them grievously. If they have children, they can think about their dick, and how that dick has basically one purpose, which is to produce children; then look back and forth between their dick and their children, then look at you, who's telling them their dick don't work because their parents are monsters, and...
Surely, you see at least a little why this argument ain't working.
this. thousands of years ago, circumcision historically was done for a few reasons...
compared to today's circumstances, if you're not doing it for a serious medical issue, you shouldn't do it.
oh, and some guys get cut so tight, that it literally restricts how big you can get during an erection. assuming you have good blood pressure, and the internal tendon (or whatever it's called) isn't excessively short, your erection can be bigger when you're uncircumcised. i'm not a monster or anything, but a couple of girls have even commented on it... they didn't even realize i was uncircumcised until after i wasn't hard anymore.