“but they won’t remember it!!!”
“it doesn’t hurt that bad!!!”
“but uncut dicks are ugly!!!”
Graphic but I’m so firmly against this practice that reblogging was almost a reflex.
I was thinking of getting circumcised, but this may have changed my mind. OUCH.
And in case anyone wondered, nope. lol
Nope still not changing my mind…
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
- A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
- A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
- Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
- Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
- Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
And if I have a son he will be circumcised as well, just like all the men in my family, and faith are.
On top of that I have met many girls who said they have rejected a guy just by seeing or knowing they are uncircumcised…
Confirmation bias and one can be reduced by washing your dick (cuz thats so hard) and the std thing? Fucking DEBUNKED BABY. Look at europe and look at the U.S. And a majority of the people in europe are UNCUT. In fact the skin protects the penis.
Oh and fuck what those women think. Know what I think? Cut dicks disgust me and look gross and naked and I prefer uncut dicks. Did you know ribbed condoms exist to replace the feeling of foreskin during intercorse? The fact you think cutting up baby penis is perfectly okay shows what kind of sick disgusting cunt you are and I hope your son grows up to hate you for imposing something on him he had no choice in.
I mean why do YOU care how your son’s dick looks or what other women think? Are you going to be sucking him off or something or regularly looking at his penis?
I can cut off my breasts and reduce my risk of breast cancer greatly but that doesn’t mean I am going to fucking do it or force it on other women.
I think forcing circumcision on newborn boys is a bit cruel.
“A bit cruel” is putting it mildly.
Okay, here we go with more ridiculous crap. If you don’t want to be circumcised, that’s your business. But I don’t even remember being circumcised as a newborn. And I’ll probably have my son, if I have one, undergo the same procedure. It’s a practice that’s been observed for thousands of years. I think it quite merited.
But no, you people see just a little bit of blood and freak out using shock words like “mutilation” and “cruel” to describe a perfectly acceptable medical procedure.
oh look who just became the voice for all men in the world considering one person who reblogged this was cut and very pissed off about being cut.
bye bye dumbass
How am I not surprised that my opening lines were disregarded…
First off. Circumcision is a choice. You might not like it so guess what? Your son doesn’t have to be cut if you and your partner so choose. Second, circumcision isa thing. It’s not new, its not some controversial experimental practice. It’ been around for a while. Lastly, just because there’s a cite-able paper out there, doesn’t mean a topic is conclusive. Anyone who’s taken some kind of research class knows this.
PS. The fact you can’t be bothered to respond in a rational manner only serves to undermine your credibility in a debate.
Surveys have shown that the main reason people choose to circumcise in America is because the father had it done to him, and he wants the son to be like him. That’s vanity. The vast majority of medical organizations in the world with a policy on circumcision are outright against it. Including:
Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban)
Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a “strong policy of deterrence.” this policy has been endorsed by several other organizations:
The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,
The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,
The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,
The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,
The Netherlands Urology Association, and
The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure…. Advise parents that the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks.…. Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue. |
Australian Federation of Aids organizations They state that circumcision has “no role” in the HIV epidemic. TheGerman Association of Pediatricians called for a ban recently.
The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors recently Attacked the AAP’s claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are “questionable,” and that “Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia.” (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.)
The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting “Irreversible mutilating surgery.”
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them and are becoming activists against it.
The President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association has said the same (link above).
The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.”
Royal College of Surgeons of England
“The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age.”…”The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure.” |
British Medical Association
it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. …. very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. …. parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. …. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. |
Australian Medical Association Has a policy of discouraging it, ad says “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.”
Australian College of Paediatrics:
“The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will probably only be known if the matter is determined in a court of law …..Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce.”|
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
Some men strongly resent having been circumcised as infants. There has been increasing interest in this problem, evidenced by the number of surgical and non-surgical techniques for recreation of the foreskin.|
ON that note, 74% of Australian doctors overall believe circumcision should not be offered, and 51% consider it abuse. Circumcision used to be common in Australia, but the movement against it spread faster there than America, where rates continue to drop.
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons I like this one especially. It’s a detailed evaluation of the arguments in favor of circumcision, They note that during one of the recent trials in Africa, the researchers claimed there was no loss of sexual satisfaction, when in fact there was. But the RACS called them out:
“Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant,Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.” In general, they discuss how there’s no evidence to support it.
The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.
The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well.
The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed.
And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo.
Swedish Association for Sexuality Education published this guide that talks about circumcision, in a pretty negative way. not an official advocacy policy but it makes it fairly clear. it also mentions the frenulum is sexually sensitive, and helps prevent infection by blocking fluid from the urethra; the frenulum is often removed in an infant circumcision, yet easier to leave intact if an adult is circumcised.
this study shows significant harms to men’s sexual ability and satisfaction after circumcision.
And here’s a list of medical literature proving the dangers.
Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity
Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties
Circumcision linked to alexithymia
The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission
Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence
There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV
Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure
Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis
Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits
Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae
Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue
Circumcision has negligible benefit
Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma
Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life
Circumcision linked to psychological trauma
Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behavior
Anyone who supports this rather despicable practice is directly and justifying the mutilation of infant boys (which kills roughly 117 every year). And they have the gall to say that we are contrived in our outrage, because it can’t possibly be as bad for men as it is for women.
The fact that they can go on calling the foreskin “just skin”, and ignore the countless articles and studies proving that it is far more than that, is mind boggling to me.
I’m willing to concede to the fact that there are cited medical precedents to not go through with a circumcision. However, I will not agree with this hyped notion that circumcision is a form of mutilation and that it should be despised. Even if it is nothing more than a social ideology, it’s still justifiable. As someone who was circumcised at birth, I neither regret nor resent my parents for having that procedure carried out. I will probably have my son circumcised as well and I’m fairly certain he will not resent me for it either.