Calling unnecessary circumcision of boys “genital mutilation” sounds frivolous because it makes it sound like you’re placing it alongside FGM in terms of its effects and severity. But it is nevertheless genital mutilation, by just about any definition you care to put forward. The men living in the non-circumcision-crazed countries of the world aren’t constantly having their blackened rotten cocks drop off from all the dick disease they’re allegedly exposed to by having an intact penis, so I don’t understand why you would feel the need to do this to your kid without a specific medical reason (of which there are very few that require surgical removal of the skin).
“But if you don’t wash it, it gets dickcheese!” and the solution to that is slicing the fucking skin off of it? The clue is in the warning: wash it. Teach your sons to care for their wilberts. Telling them to lather up their bellend in the shower is hardly something that needs prompting anyway.
Personal/intimate hygiene should be part of regular schooling. Not even as part of sex ex, just “how to care for your vessel” kinda shit. Don’t drink to excess, walk and move at least 10 minutes a day, stay away from illegal drugs, be careful with prescription drugs, and wash your bastard stinksausage.
As an American who wasn’t circumcised, this country is so fucking weird about it. Like I got teased for it occasionally. People talk about hygiene, but from what I hear you’re unlikely to find a guy who cleans his asshole but not his foreskin. Like, do what you want with your body, get circumcised if you want, bifurcate the thing if you want, I don’t even have a dick anymore, but circumcising babies is taking that freedom away from them for reasons that always sound ludicrous to me.
And for the attractiveness thing, I’ve had exes who think foreskin is really hot, and personally I think dicks look super weird without it.
There was an uncircumcised kid at my daycare we made fun of. We didn’t know why his was different than ours and thought HE was the weird one. Turns out no, it was our dumbass parents and the asshole doctors who did that to us that were the problem.
It’s interesting that the pro circumcision crowd who rant about hygiene don’t support girls having their labia cut off to prevent grime from accumulating between the folds.
Circumcision should be reserved for actual medical reasons, like phimosis, and if possible at age of consent.
If you don’t wash behind your ears, bacteria will grow and cause it to smell. By their logic, they should be chopping off ears as well.
The purpose of circumcision is to make maturation and sex less pleasurable as it removes about 1/3 of sensory nerves and meant to make it more difficult to masturbate because you can’t just pull on tight skin. You can still perform the basic acts of sex and masturbation, but it’s not as pleasurable. Likewise, one can still hear without ears even if it’s not as good as those with intact ears.
Jeez, if you make masturbation MORE pleasurable, teenage boys will never get anything done. It would single-handedly (pun not intended, but I’ll take it) crash the gaming industry.
While I agree with the majority of the argument, I don’t agree with this point. Age of consent is mainly a political thing, disregarding the actualities involved with teenagers and sexual life, and discrediting those who have problems before that set age.
Biologically, pubescence which is around 13 is where this decision should be undertaken, as this is the point where the individual is sexually mature.
Medical problems start before the age of consent so the individuals which are sexually mature should have the option to treat this condition.
The age of consent is not the age of sexual maturity for a reason. Girls as young as 6 can start their periods and can get pregnant, but they’re not mature enough to make informed decisions about their reproductive health, or really anything in general.
Yes that is correct, but you’re misinterpreting my initial argument. As by sexual maturity I mean the average age of sexual maturity which as implied within my statement was 13.
But, alas. It is a problem on my end with my argument not being clear enough on that - I can thank you on pointing that error out.
Calling unnecessary circumcision of boys “genital mutilation” sounds frivolous because it makes it sound like you’re placing it alongside FGM in terms of its effects and severity. But it is nevertheless genital mutilation, by just about any definition you care to put forward. The men living in the non-circumcision-crazed countries of the world aren’t constantly having their blackened rotten cocks drop off from all the dick disease they’re allegedly exposed to by having an intact penis, so I don’t understand why you would feel the need to do this to your kid without a specific medical reason (of which there are very few that require surgical removal of the skin).
“But if you don’t wash it, it gets dickcheese!” and the solution to that is slicing the fucking skin off of it? The clue is in the warning: wash it. Teach your sons to care for their wilberts. Telling them to lather up their bellend in the shower is hardly something that needs prompting anyway.
Personal/intimate hygiene should be part of regular schooling. Not even as part of sex ex, just “how to care for your vessel” kinda shit. Don’t drink to excess, walk and move at least 10 minutes a day, stay away from illegal drugs, be careful with prescription drugs, and wash your bastard stinksausage.
No, just be careful and make sure that you understand what you’re doing.
As an American who wasn’t circumcised, this country is so fucking weird about it. Like I got teased for it occasionally. People talk about hygiene, but from what I hear you’re unlikely to find a guy who cleans his asshole but not his foreskin. Like, do what you want with your body, get circumcised if you want, bifurcate the thing if you want, I don’t even have a dick anymore, but circumcising babies is taking that freedom away from them for reasons that always sound ludicrous to me.
And for the attractiveness thing, I’ve had exes who think foreskin is really hot, and personally I think dicks look super weird without it.
There was an uncircumcised kid at my daycare we made fun of. We didn’t know why his was different than ours and thought HE was the weird one. Turns out no, it was our dumbass parents and the asshole doctors who did that to us that were the problem.
It’s interesting that the pro circumcision crowd who rant about hygiene don’t support girls having their labia cut off to prevent grime from accumulating between the folds. Circumcision should be reserved for actual medical reasons, like phimosis, and if possible at age of consent.
If you don’t wash behind your ears, bacteria will grow and cause it to smell. By their logic, they should be chopping off ears as well.
The purpose of circumcision is to make maturation and sex less pleasurable as it removes about 1/3 of sensory nerves and meant to make it more difficult to masturbate because you can’t just pull on tight skin. You can still perform the basic acts of sex and masturbation, but it’s not as pleasurable. Likewise, one can still hear without ears even if it’s not as good as those with intact ears.
Just goes to show how insane these people are.
Jeez, if you make masturbation MORE pleasurable, teenage boys will never get anything done. It would single-handedly (pun not intended, but I’ll take it) crash the gaming industry.
The “hygiene” argument just shows me how backwards Americans are
Have the stupid cunts not heard of soap?
More like everyone’s too socially awkward to want to discuss any form of hygiene directly. Kinda wild really.
As a young child I didn’t know I had to wash between my toes, and I got athletes foot.
If only a kind doctor had cut all my toes off when I was born.
What is this “soap” you speak of?
You are meant to wash under the foreskin obviously but only with water. Soap is generally considered too harsh for that area
But obviously there are times one uses soap. It’s part inside, part outside. You have to keep outside out of inside.
While I agree with the majority of the argument, I don’t agree with this point. Age of consent is mainly a political thing, disregarding the actualities involved with teenagers and sexual life, and discrediting those who have problems before that set age.
Biologically, pubescence which is around 13 is where this decision should be undertaken, as this is the point where the individual is sexually mature.
Medical problems start before the age of consent so the individuals which are sexually mature should have the option to treat this condition.
The age of consent is not the age of sexual maturity for a reason. Girls as young as 6 can start their periods and can get pregnant, but they’re not mature enough to make informed decisions about their reproductive health, or really anything in general.
Yes that is correct, but you’re misinterpreting my initial argument. As by sexual maturity I mean the average age of sexual maturity which as implied within my statement was 13.
But, alas. It is a problem on my end with my argument not being clear enough on that - I can thank you on pointing that error out.