Re: South Africa and Circumcision
BearBoi, don't get your panties into a wad, honey.
Sorry, I’m just used to some people going on the offensive and being extremely insensitive, even callous.
Hey, not my fault you screwed up your example... I'd advise more careful thinking-through next time you want to make a point.
The example was subjective. I find it perfectly valid; you don’t. No need to get… snippy.
Except that if the benefits were that significant, the practice would have died out years ago.
That would be assuming people had all the facts. They didn't. Many still don't.
Routine infant circumcision started in the Victorian era as a way to curb masturbation, which was believed to cause insanity. That’s what doctors told people. That is what they believed.
Now consider all the facts about the foreskin I shared with you. Most people don’t know any of that. To this day, most people blindly trust doctors, even though some still advise circumcision 'prevents penile cancer’ -- a lie long disavowed by the American Cancer Society, which has made multiple requests for them to stop.
However, as I mentioned earlier, infant male circumcision rates in North America have been steadily dropping since the 70s and that drop is picking up speed -- not slowing down. We’ve entered the information era in which people can be more informed than ever, and they are waking up to the facts.
So in a way, you are correct; as people learn the significant benefits, the practice of circumcising infants is slowly dying. The death of this practice in religious and ingrained social customs may take a little longer (as change often does in such settings), but I’m confident it, too, will eventually fade. Look at many of the Jewish anti-circumcision websites. I've even seen a few Muslim.
And there would presumably be many more instances of circumcised guys reporting problems to their doctors, wouldn't there? Or they'd all just fall off.
But they haven't.
I’d assume that is because they have no basis for comparison.
Agreed - that is unfortunate. But the proportion is small. There are more car accidents than plane accidents every year - should we get rid of cars? The question is whether the end justifies the means.
I don’t care if it is 1. The only person who should make the decision about whether or not to cut off their foreskin is the person who owns it.
Nope. It's the one which seems to come up most in discussion. You read any of these cut/uncut threads in here, you'll see. Try any of the anti-circumcision hysteria-laden internet sites as well if you're not sure.
I believed you accused me, personally, of being motivated by that particular obsession.
I just pointed out that I’m not.
Personally, I don’t comment on the ‘loss of feeling’ aspect because it is subjective. Also, I consider it moot. Whether or not it is true or false, it has nothing to do with my points about cosmetic infant circumcision being a violation of basic human rights.
My honest opinion? Get over it. No, seriously.
Is your penis worthy of a "worst case scenario:" entry in a medical journal, or the freakshow section of a museum? Is there pain? Can you pee, get hard and enjoy sex to the point where you experience orgasm which you also enjoy?
Get over it, then. There are guys in here with real grounds for holding a grudge.
Your standards of “sufficiently mutilated” are not what determines if a person’s opinions on this matter are valid.
Jesus Christ, it's a difference of SIX PERCENT. Don't get your knickers all in a twist, ffs. Plus, I included a margin of error, which could bring it down to close to what the WHO said it was.
