At least that is my opinion. Let me create a hypothetical scenerio: a infant boy is just born, and is found by doctors to be perfectly healthy and anatomically correct. His foreskin has no phimosis, or any other medical ailment for that matter. Does this baby boy have the right to an intact body, as he was born with it? I say yes. We provide legal protection females' right to intact genitals in this country, even despite religious reasons to cut those sex organs. I realize that many people won't agree with the equation of amputating part of the males anatomy versus amputating part of the female anatomy (which baffles me) so let me provide another example. It is against the law to tattoo an infant, even if it is the parents' wishes to do so (religious or not). Legally, we realize that the hypothetical child has protection from such a procedure, because is a clear violation of their bodily rights, including bodily integrity. (I.e. bare, untattooed skin.) I am interested in hearing your logical opinions on this matter. If you disagree with my opinion, please explain why.
I agree, I think taking a scalpel or bell cutting device to an infant foreskin is pretty disgusting too, but emotional appeal doesn't get you very far in a logical, rational discussion.
I wouldn't want a useless piece of skin which poses the risk of infection attatched to my penis. Edit: I wouldn't want a useless piece of skin which would cause premature ejaculation attatched to my penis. Thank you, Mom and Dad.
I agree, and for parents using their religion as an excuse, you have no idea if the child is going to share those beliefs. After all it is HIS penis, not the parents. If he wants to get circumcised when he's gown up, then let him then. Edit:^ that risk is low, especially if you're taught proper hygiene. And it's hardly useless.
The foreskin is far from useless, it has anatomical function just like every other part of your body does. (I.e. By far the majority of nerves responsible for sexual pleasure, the gliding action as a mechanical function, the protection from microbes that comes with having a covered, mucous membrane glans and inner foreskin) Your "risk of infection" arguement is silly. There is nothing inherent about the foreskin that attracts HIV, STDs, or any other type of infection for that matter. Getting a circumcision also doesn't magically make you cleaner, more hygenic, or protected from any sexually transmitted disease. Just because you are content with your circumcision, doesn't mean boys everywhere of all ages don't deserve the right to choose that for themselves.
I didn't see his edit. Premature ejaculation haha. Happens regardless of whether or not you have the foreskin, and not at higher rates.
Read into it man. It protects the glans (head) from becoming dry and losing most of its sensitivity. Basically you just feel a fraction of what you should after having been circumcised so long compared to if you still had your foreskin. Edit: not to mention it really is much more skin than you think but it's folded up. You lose most of the sensitive nerve endings along with it
Lucky you That's not even the main thing for me still. Just someone making a big decision about my own body when I have no say in it.
No offense, but have you ever studied human anatomy or physiology? How about pleasure? Not to mention, the foreskin itself is only a part of the total receivable pleasure. The frenulum is also amputated to some extent. Protection from microbes due to the natural slightly acidic pH environment? (This is only due to the glans and inner foreskin remaining covered) The glans is meant to be an internal organ, covered and protected from the outside world. Easing friction on the vagina? The gliding action as a mechanical function has been well documented. Theres a whole host of others including immonological functions, but Ive said enough. If you wish to delve further into those subjects thats your own perogative.
I've heard this argument before, that when you cut the skin off, you're cutting out like 75%-80% of the "feeling", but the human body typically finds a way to make up for what it lost. Organs will try to double their functioning to make up for the loss, so who knows, maybe cut guys feel even more because it's trying to jam the same amount of feeling into a smaller area? Do you know anyone who was old enough to have had a healthy sex life for awhile with his extra skin and then had it cut off to where they said "yeah, seems like you lose a lot of function.."? I doubt it cause most who are cut are cut young. The extra skin is a left over from when it actually had function somewhere far far back in our evolution. And yes, with proper hygiene it shouldn't be an issue, but look at the majority of people out there.. You really think the majority of the world are hygiene freaks? It just adds probability of some nasty fucker creating the perfect environment in his dick skin for some human attacking virus/bacteria to evolve. Plus, I can't recall ever thinking "damn, my penis head has dry skin.."
LOL..in high school shit hit the fan when this..'Fake Nazi' ...(He hung out with black kids,listened to rap but was always on the ****** jokes, and jew jokes). He has this 'theory' that after WW2 jewish people came to america, and entered the medical profession, and since a way to tell if you wee jewish was by your foreskin. That jewish people spread rumors that circumcision is better for you. LOL it was dropped quick mainly because it was a class of like 15 kids, and no one was into a debate of that subject haha. I will say though that the majority of american chicks who are "grossed" out by uncut penis are used to seeing cut penis. I have a tough choice when I have a kid...ill prolly just leave it uncut...though it depends if I end up having a kid with one of those.. "ughh uncut dicks look like ugly sausage' or some shit....but then again those are immature bitches..so nvm. I for one wish my cock wasn't butchered but w/e.
PS...guys who were born cut...the whole 'lose feeling' point is null and void..though it must suck for guys who get it cut after they have already had sexual experiences smh.
Haha dry as in not naturally lubed up, not chapped. You have a higher chance of a botched circumcision than getting any serious infection on your penis.
There's no scientific evidence to date that says intact males statistically suffer from premature ejaculation at a greater percentage than their circumcised counterparts.
I highly doubt that the procedure today is the same as it was years ago. That doesn't mean everyone who does the surgery does it right, but if you get it done in an up-to-standard hospital, your chances of getting botched are slim. Now if you're a rabbi and doing the surgery so you can suck the fresh blood of baby dick, then you should be decapitated.