There’s an argument to be made for hygienic uses of circumcision and doing it at a later year (post puberty) could cause larger health complications and scarring than doing it in infancy. I don’t mind leaving it at the discretion of the parents as it is really a fairly simple surgery whose complications are entirely due to the competency of the doctor.
This is really sad sophistry. Even if you “wash your dick” you statistically are more prone to penis cancer, uti’s, and stds because of how the hood traps liquid and bacteria. Removing hair follicles doesn’t reduce chances of cancer it raises it, same with fingernails and cancer/ infections.
that's like how they do remove women's breast's when they don't have breast cancer but they do have a possibility of getting it since it runs in the family. there's no such thing as foreskin cancer tho. the health benefits are made up, it's done to reduce pleasure of sex (and masturbation)
foisted onto us by a religion that most people aren't a part of.
Christian physicians emulated the Jewish practice of their own volition. Jews certainly deserve their share of blame for the stubbornness of the practice - they're the only ones who would claim a ban would be an unconstitutional infringement on their right to practice their religion - but it's not their fault that Christian men like Kellogg thought circumcision was responsible for Jews' good sexual health.
You are rationalizing barbarism that was foisted onto us by a religion that most people aren't a part of.
Jews didn’t invent circumcision, circumcision also was one of the biggest life extending surgeries men could due back in the day.
Don't fuck random strangers. STD problems solved.
Don’t fuck random strangers, still get UTI and die from sepsis. Congratulations
Having intact body parts increases cancer risks for those body parts? Shocker!
Is a circumcised penis not intact? Can it not function exactly the same? Hilarious the amp of stupid coming from you.
In that case, we should start proactively hacking off other body parts to decrease cancer risk.
You would be increasing alternative cancer risks in most cases, but someone who has probably never even studied basic biology won’t get that because they’re too busy blaming the Jews for a minor surgery that extended male life for centuries before antiseptics existed and still arguably does now.
If you don't have your colon, you can't get colon cancer. So let's start removing baby's colons.
Again conflating a minor surgery that removes a small portion of skin with an entire organ. Congratulations you are making the exact same conflation as the retarded liberal claiming circumcision is the same as a double mastectomy.
Again, pathetic sophistry. Removal of the hood doesn’t impact ability to reproduce and it doesn’t remove the penis. Shame you can’t make a better argument than a liberal equating circumcision to a double mastectomy.
Yeah, well you're more prone to breast cancer if you keep your boobs too. You wouldn't happen to be circumcised, would you?
Before you call this "sad sophistry," first realize that your argument amounts to "even if you wash <body part>, you still get <body part-specific hygiene and health issues>." People comparing testicles or hair follicles to foreskin in this situation are giving you perfect analogies based on your argument, they're not saying the body parts are equivalent in importance or magnitude.
I’m sorry, do circumcised people not have penises or are you making a stupid comparison? removing a small amount of epithelial tissue is not the same as removing an entire organ…
If men weren't meant to have a foreskin, it wouldn't be there in nature. Circumcision was also incredibly rare outside of Judaism until they started pushing it in the 20th century.
I see circumcision as one of the first body modifications by humans who think they "know better" than nature. Given science's poor track record in deciding what is important and what isn't on the human body I wouldn't trust it.
It’s been proven to date back to 6000bc with evidence as far back as 15000bc.
Circumcision was also incredibly rare outside of Judaism until they started pushing it in the 20th century.
This is patently false, while Judaism heavily utilizes the practice, Islam and Christianity did as well. Circumcision was one of the best preventive measures for infection in men before antiseptics. England and America started using it as a preventative measure of stds mid 19th century and was largely pushed by devout Christian doctors. One of the more famous being Dr. Kellogg who founded the company of the same name.
Islam and Christianity did as well. Circumcision was one of the best preventive measures for infection in men before antiseptics.
Citation needed, citation needed.
Kellogg pushed it to prevent boys from masturbating. Some boys were castrated in the 19th century because they did it too much. I do like Victorianism, but this is not exactly an attractive part of the culture.
Yeah, thats why the Nazis totally didn't use circumcision as a quick way to identify Jewish men pretending to be gentiles, because everyone was doing it in 1940's Europe. Right?
I knew a guy who got it done at 11 after he moved to the US and said he had to sit in a bathtub for a week because the air hurt. I see both sides on this issue but the people making this comparison are utterly insane and know they are wrong.
For the ones who gaslight (non Zionists) their gaslighting is 100% cope. Having brought this up some of them get visibly disturbed while they simultaneously claim its no big deal and keeps men from being rapists.
I think part of the gaslighting effort against the 'uncircumcised' is so that circumcised guys don't think about what's been done to them and question it.
That's how its always been. I remember back in my undergrad we had a day in class about it, and one of the top reasons for it (and almost always the answer from women) was "so it looks like dad" or "so I don't have to explain why dad is different." Its all sunken cost.
The whole reason such a debate even came up in a Psyche class is because its a great example of how trauma can literally change your brain's physical form, and you don't even need to be able to remember it for that to effect you.
Yeah children heal faster. But adults have a choice not to do it. The question is really whether you want it done at all and to what degree you're going to allow parents to make that choice for their own children. Since I don't see it as serious mutilation, more like getting ears pierced, it is not within me to outlaw other people's choice on this.
There’s an argument to be made for hygienic uses of circumcision and doing it at a later year (post puberty) could cause larger health complications and scarring than doing it in infancy. I don’t mind leaving it at the discretion of the parents as it is really a fairly simple surgery whose complications are entirely due to the competency of the doctor.
This is really sad sophistry. Even if you “wash your dick” you statistically are more prone to penis cancer, uti’s, and stds because of how the hood traps liquid and bacteria. Removing hair follicles doesn’t reduce chances of cancer it raises it, same with fingernails and cancer/ infections.
that's like how they do remove women's breast's when they don't have breast cancer but they do have a possibility of getting it since it runs in the family. there's no such thing as foreskin cancer tho. the health benefits are made up, it's done to reduce pleasure of sex (and masturbation)
Christian physicians emulated the Jewish practice of their own volition. Jews certainly deserve their share of blame for the stubbornness of the practice - they're the only ones who would claim a ban would be an unconstitutional infringement on their right to practice their religion - but it's not their fault that Christian men like Kellogg thought circumcision was responsible for Jews' good sexual health.
Jews didn’t invent circumcision, circumcision also was one of the biggest life extending surgeries men could due back in the day.
Don’t fuck random strangers, still get UTI and die from sepsis. Congratulations
Is a circumcised penis not intact? Can it not function exactly the same? Hilarious the amp of stupid coming from you.
You would be increasing alternative cancer risks in most cases, but someone who has probably never even studied basic biology won’t get that because they’re too busy blaming the Jews for a minor surgery that extended male life for centuries before antiseptics existed and still arguably does now.
Again conflating a minor surgery that removes a small portion of skin with an entire organ. Congratulations you are making the exact same conflation as the retarded liberal claiming circumcision is the same as a double mastectomy.
Lmao so fucking what retard, it's an important part of your sexual anatomy. Why don't we just remove the clitoris, it's pointless and looks ugly.
Simps like you shit bricks over the idea of that tho, because you're pussy whipped.
No it’s really not, the only prominence of the hood is to create a seal during orgasm which has never shown to increase odds of conception
There’s no medical benefits to removing the clitoris and a known increased risk to cancer.
Read a medical study princess
Men with two balls are statistically more prone to testicular cancer.
Now, now, no need to run to get the kitchen knife.
Again, pathetic sophistry. Removal of the hood doesn’t impact ability to reproduce and it doesn’t remove the penis. Shame you can’t make a better argument than a liberal equating circumcision to a double mastectomy.
Yeah, well you're more prone to breast cancer if you keep your boobs too. You wouldn't happen to be circumcised, would you?
Before you call this "sad sophistry," first realize that your argument amounts to "even if you wash <body part>, you still get <body part-specific hygiene and health issues>." People comparing testicles or hair follicles to foreskin in this situation are giving you perfect analogies based on your argument, they're not saying the body parts are equivalent in importance or magnitude.
I’m sorry, do circumcised people not have penises or are you making a stupid comparison? removing a small amount of epithelial tissue is not the same as removing an entire organ…
If men weren't meant to have a foreskin, it wouldn't be there in nature. Circumcision was also incredibly rare outside of Judaism until they started pushing it in the 20th century.
I see circumcision as one of the first body modifications by humans who think they "know better" than nature. Given science's poor track record in deciding what is important and what isn't on the human body I wouldn't trust it.
It’s been proven to date back to 6000bc with evidence as far back as 15000bc.
This is patently false, while Judaism heavily utilizes the practice, Islam and Christianity did as well. Circumcision was one of the best preventive measures for infection in men before antiseptics. England and America started using it as a preventative measure of stds mid 19th century and was largely pushed by devout Christian doctors. One of the more famous being Dr. Kellogg who founded the company of the same name.
Citation needed, citation needed.
Kellogg pushed it to prevent boys from masturbating. Some boys were castrated in the 19th century because they did it too much. I do like Victorianism, but this is not exactly an attractive part of the culture.
Yeah, thats why the Nazis totally didn't use circumcision as a quick way to identify Jewish men pretending to be gentiles, because everyone was doing it in 1940's Europe. Right?
In Islamic-ruled lands, a synonym for this sick practice is 'Islamized'.
Conflates Europe with England and America. Do you need a map?
I knew a guy who got it done at 11 after he moved to the US and said he had to sit in a bathtub for a week because the air hurt. I see both sides on this issue but the people making this comparison are utterly insane and know they are wrong.
It hurts infants as well. Just as much.
Great way to start life, eh?
For the ones who gaslight (non Zionists) their gaslighting is 100% cope. Having brought this up some of them get visibly disturbed while they simultaneously claim its no big deal and keeps men from being rapists.
That's how its always been. I remember back in my undergrad we had a day in class about it, and one of the top reasons for it (and almost always the answer from women) was "so it looks like dad" or "so I don't have to explain why dad is different." Its all sunken cost.
The whole reason such a debate even came up in a Psyche class is because its a great example of how trauma can literally change your brain's physical form, and you don't even need to be able to remember it for that to effect you.
Yeah children heal faster. But adults have a choice not to do it. The question is really whether you want it done at all and to what degree you're going to allow parents to make that choice for their own children. Since I don't see it as serious mutilation, more like getting ears pierced, it is not within me to outlaw other people's choice on this.
Its a lot worse than ear piercing. Its removing a functional organ. Look up what the purpose of the foreskin is.
why do you believe that fake news