Circumcision -a civil rights violation!

[tooblue]

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...679981,00.html

lol ... maybe, just maybe libido wanes with age and that's ok!

[marsupial]

Circumcision is pointless. It is done for purely aesthetic reasons. We kept the hat on our son's head.

[MikeWaters]

great article. now with a device to put the foreskin back, I don't have to feel guilty about circumcising my offspring.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by marsupial

Circumcision is pointless. It is done for purely aesthetic reasons. We kept the hat on our son's head.

it's not entirely pointless. In Africa, it might keep you alive (HIV).

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it's not entirely pointless. In Africa, it might keep you alive (HIV).

OK. But in the West where soap, clean water and condoms are readily available, it is pointless. Most parents do it because they want their son's penis to look like their father's. There's no real medical need. Some site UTIs, but from what I read long ago when I had a reason to investigate this, the rate of complications due to circumcision was higher than the rate of UTIs for those left intact.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by marsupial

OK. But in the West where soap, clean water and condoms are readily available, it is pointless. Most parents do it because they want their son's penis to look like their father's. There's no real medical need. Some site UTIs, but from what I read long ago when I had a reason to investigate this, the rate of complications due to circumcision was higher than the rate of UTIs for those left intact.

I'm not sure how close that article is to reality. I think the barriers to most men having more frequent sex has little to do with penile sensitivity, and a lot more to do with availability of partners. In fact, I'm pretty sure that premature ejaculation is a much bigger problem than post-mature sensation.

The guy in the article is probably a shill for the device.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by marsupial

OK. But in the West where soap, clean water and condoms are readily available, it is pointless. Most parents do it because they want their son's penis to look like their father's. There's no real medical need. Some site UTIs, but from what I read long ago when I had a reason to investigate this, the rate of complications due to circumcision was higher than the rate of UTIs for those left intact.

You don't want your kid being the only anteater in a locker room full of helmet heads.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

You don't want your kid being the only anteater in a locker room full of helmet heads.

According to the latest statistics, there will be an increasing number of anteaters with the helmet heads. I think it's about 50/50 across the U.S., though places like Utah still have a pretty high percentage of helmet heads, whereas places like California have a higher percentage of anteaters.

The National Health and Life Survey reports that circumcision rates in the United States are now down to 57% among males born. That number is low compared to a whopping 90% circumcision rate in the 1960's. Some states have an even lower amount of routine circumcisions done at the rate of less than 50% of males are circumcised after birth. California has the least amount of newborns circumcised and reported 21% in 2004.

[woot]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

You don't want your kid being the only anteater in a locker room full of helmet heads.

I think this is the only reason why the practice continues. If I have a boy I might even consider having him snipped for this reason, despite my opinion that the practice is pointless and barbaric. Any other justifications seem weak and likely post hoc.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by woot

I think this is the only reason why the practice continues. If I have a boy I might even consider having him snipped for this reason, despite my opinion that the practice is pointless and barbaric. Any other justifications seem weak and likely post hoc.

Move to California with Steel then.