Gotta throw in my female 2 cents here: in the bedroom, the difference between natural and circumcised, all other things being equal, is astonishing. There are reasons the foreskin is there and it's not just to benefit the man. I also find natural to be beautiful :-)
My sister left her young son natural. She said to me that the woman he would love some day would thank her. I'm so grateful my dear man's mother made the same decision.
Agreed. I wish I had been better informed at the time. It's just a silly perpetuating tradition. It's pretty much exactly like the video says, 'Well yeah, his d*** should look like mine.'
I'm a woman but that's how my husband and I made the choice.
Assuming he did them as "routine", that's so sad to hear. He probably didn't realize the damage he caused.
The article you cite is just repeating the same propaganda, calling those who see routine circumcision as a human rights violation a "fringe group". The Mormon church does the same thing to those who have researched the facts and see the fraud for what it is.
In 1975, 95% of five-year old boys in the USA were cut. In 2015 it was under 60%. In over a hundred counties in the northeast, west and south, more non-hispanic boys are left intact than cut. That's not a fringe group anymore.
And the trend is not about to slow down. In 1965, 85% of Australian men were cut. By 2015 it was 15%. A complete reversal in fifty years time. Moreover, in 1965 most intact men were over 40, and in 2015 most circumcised men were. It was a one-generation fad, just like the"royal tradition" that some cutters talk about: Queen Elizabeth had her three boys cut. But neither her father and uncles nor her grandsons had to go through this.
When I first visited Florence, I noted that Michelangelo must have been ignorant of circumcision as David, in all his magnificent glory, was uncut. The Boner.
The foreskin is there for a reason. Because some religion(s) decided to lop it off plus whack jobs like Kellogg decided that masturbation was the root of all evil (and that daily enemas would cure everything too BTW) doesn't make them a good idea.
I've never heard a good argument in favor of circumcision. Hiv prevention? Hiv is much more prevalent in cut than uncut nations, so that obviously doesn't work. Preventing masturbation? That's what corn flakes were invented for. Preventing hunchbacks, hysteria or hernias? I don't know that we teach that. That may be just a couplet. Those 19th century doctors were just speaking as a man. Reducing bacteria? Then you better cut off your tongue first.
Funniest thing is, I once heard a pro-circumcision freak say that hundreds of deaths and thousands of botched circumcisions a year (in the USA that is, in Africa it's much higher) was a price worth paying, yet he vehemently opposed vaccinations. Go figure.
I'm very disappointed by these arguments that ignore science and medicine.
The same thing has happened with people who won't vaccinate their children. Truth doesn't matter. Science doesn't matter. Only pseudo-science, rumour, and superstition do.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2016 06:20PM by anybody.
As far as masturbating, I don't think it works. Not for me, anyway. Circumcision has always been a rather fuzzy concept for me, as to whether it's ok. Let's face it, if there's any loss, you won't know, because it was done when you were a baby and had no experience or knowledge. Any losses would be unknowable. My current belief on it is that it's unnecessary, and best avoided. It's an artifact of past social ideas. The fact that I was circumcised doesn't bother me, though.