2
10

[–] Penfold 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

As long as you wash there isn't a medical reason unless the skin is too tight to pull back. I read that 1000s of years ago it was used to stop teenagers masturbating. I am unsure of this though.

3
8

[–] Alopix 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

The crazy has been ongoing for those 1000s of years and is only finally starting to be beaten back.

1
4

[–] lordtyp0 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

It can take awhile to get firmly in hand, then there are the proselytizers who climb up on the stump; and nobody can get them off.

0
2

[–] Ciscogeek 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It doesn't need to pull back fully to partake. ;)

0
1

[–] Penfold 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I know it isnt the same as chopping off a clit, but it still seems unnecessary unless there is a medical reason, like extra tight skin or normal skin and a extra large penis.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

As long as you wash there isn't a medical reason unless the skin is too tight to pull back.

Even then, there's less destructive, more effective treatments, like stretching and creams which loosen the skin.

I read that 1000s of years ago it was used to stop teenagers masturbating. I am unsure of this though.

Thousands of years ago? Try decades.

0
9

[–] derram 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

https://archive.is/BrTzX | :

Denmark's 29,000 Doctors Declare Circumcision of Healthy Boys an "Ethically Unacceptable" Procedure Offering no Meaningful Health Benefits | The Huffington Post

'In fact, not one medical association in the whole world recommends circumcision of healthy boys. '

'In December of 2016, the Danish Medical Association published its revised policy on circumcision. '

'Doctors and medical organizations in Denmark, the other Nordic countries and, with one notable exception, elsewhere in the Western world agree that circumcision of healthy boys is ethically problematic. '

'Now, at the beginning of 2017, I expand my call, and urge health professionals and payers, such as health insurers and Medicaid, to discourage circumcision of healthy boys and work to end the practice. '

'According to a nationally representative poll from the summer of 2016, 87% of Danes favor a legal ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of boys under the age of 18 years. '

This has been an automated message.

3
8

[–] Helios-Apollo 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

And yet many doctors are perfectly happy performing sex changes, especially considering suicides among post-ops are astronomical.

2
20

[–] lordtyp0 2 points 20 points (+22|-2) ago 

There is an important distinction: Voluntary, Infants cannot consent to modification of their bodies. For right or wrong, good or ill: an adult can chose to modify themselves how they like. Doctors pressing for circumcision are doing so to make money on the procedure.

9
-4

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sex changes are completely different.

2
7

[–] 1Sorry_SOB 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

3
0

[–] bdmthrfkr 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Lol.

1
4

[–] frankenmine 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

The Huffington Post is corrupt and should be archived in the OP. It doesn't deserve our support. Please keep this in mind for future posts.

Also, please see:

https://voat.co/v/news/comments/1315115

0
3

[–] Copernicus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Scenario #1

Parent: "Our religion says that we must circumcise our children."

DMA Rep: "That's unethical. You're barbaric and your children should be taken away from you if you do this."

Scenario #2

Parent: "Our child was born 'cis', but now we think we're going to pump 'xym' full of hormones and raise 'xyr' as a girl."

DMA Rep: "That's so enlightened. Here are some pamphlets on how you can push back against the religious nutcases who don't understand."

3
3

[–] BLOODandHONOUR 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

It's depressing when you realize you were genially mutilated as a baby for no reason with your parent's consent.

4
0

[–] birds_sing 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

For no reason? That's not true.

Lack of circumcision:

• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. Risk = 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 for uncircumcised infants and 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 for circumcised infants. Higher risk of UTI at older ages as well. Overall lifetime cumulative prevalence of UTI = 1 in 3 for uncircumcised males compared with 1 in 20 for circumcised males, respectively.

• Confers a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: namely kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400–900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis, which occurs more than 20 times more commonly in uncircumcised men. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require complete or partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, invasive penile cancer never occurs or is extraordinarily rare in men circumcised at birth.) (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figure of 1 in 100,000).

• Higher risk of prostate cancer (50–100% higher in uncircumcised men)

• Is associated with 3-fold higher risk of inflammation and infection of the skin of the penis. This includes balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), balanoposthitis (inflammation of glans and foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin that will not return after retraction). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown or much rarer in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10–50. Risk of these is even higher in diabetic men.

• Means increased risk of problems that may necessitate 1 in 10 older children and men requiring circumcision later in life, when the cost is 10 times higher, the procedure is less convenient, and the cosmetic result can be lesser, as stitches or tissue glue are required, as compared with circumcisions done in infancy.

• Increases by 2–4 fold the risk of thrush and sexually transmitted infections such as human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes (HSV-2), syphilis, chancroid, Trichomonas vaginalis and thrush.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 2 to 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STIs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• In the female partners of uncircumcised men lack of male circumcision is associated with an up to 5 fold higher incidence of cervical cancer (caused by sexually transmitted HPV), genital herpes, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis (formerly called “Gardnerella”), and possibly Chlamydia (which is a cause of pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility from blockage of fallopian tubes, and ectopic pregnancy).

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

No sources = no value

And I know for a fact that at least four of those are complete bullshit. For example, the idea that circumcision protects you from STDs comes from a single, unreplicated, study in Africa where they failed to control for condom use.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Inb4 jews decide it's anti-semetic, muslims decide it's islamophobic and feminists complain because it's comparing genital mutilation with genital mutilation, which is obviously far worse because salon told them so.

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)