Reticent horse
Experimental Member
There should no longer be any debate that circumcision is a dangerous and unnecessary violation of a boy's right to choose. It is a disgrace that people persist in genitally mutilating their children.
So you're saying I shouldn't get my kid pierced and tattooed all over when he's 3 days old? How dare you!no..... he can wait until he hits 18, then he can have one. along with that tattoo or piercing he has been begging for every Christmas.<j>
So you're saying I shouldn't get my kid pierced and tattooed all over when he's 3 days old? How dare you!
Where do people get this stuff? Statistically there's no difference in overall health between intact and cut. The difference is circ takes ten, twenty or thirty years off your sex life, depending on how much the good "doc" amputates.Tremendous health, maintenance and aesthetic benefits.
Not a chance, my ovaries are well in tact, LOL Interesting analogy that since I believe in circumcision that I would not be fit to be a mother.....you know nothing about me to make such frank statement
No, not at all! Now, the full-body tattoos on the newborn can present a few difficulties, but it's worth it. They don't feel it, and it saves them the agony of getting tattooed later in life. The facial tattoos have to be carefully cleaned until they heal.That infant PA really makes diaper changing difficult.
Citation, please.Yeah, I definately would circumcise my son! It's much better being circumcised. My brother wasn't circumcised at birth but got problems with his foreskin a few years ago (at 15). He wished he was circumcised at birth just as I am. He's now circumcised too and is very glad he is. I've also read that 1 out of 5 boys get problems with their foreskin if they're not circumcised. So, yep, I would circumcise my son(s)!!
Is the source of that CircList? Even if we allow the "1 out of 5" as valid then 4 out of 5 don't have problems. In Finland adult circumcisions run about 1 in 16,600. Not many "problems" in non-circ'ing counties for some odd reason.... I've also read that 1 out of 5 boys get problems with their foreskin if they're not circumcised.
Those aren't bad odds. I checked on the Centers for Disease Control of the US Government; this is a fact copied directly from their website and pasted here:Is the source of that CircList? Even if we allow the "1 out of 5" as valid then 4 out of 5 don't have problems. In Finland adult circumcisions run about 1 in 16,600. Not many "problems" in non-circ'ing counties for some odd reason.
I really get tired of statements like this. What people say this, how is it healthier, what studies were done... or is it just "people say, so I believe it, and I can make false statements without taking responsibility for them..."??When i was born i had a problem, i cant remember what it was called, but my penis was conected to my skin, therefore leading to me having to have surgery, when i was 2. I suppose you could call this circumsision, also people say it is much healthier to be circumsised
The wizards of marketing have thought of everything!:biggrin1: See: SinSlip.... I'm not sure that I've ever heard of prosthetic foreskins.
Another sad product of a culture where genital cutting is the norm. I do pity your brother. I'm sure he could have kept his skin. 15 years and off with it. A pity.Yeah, I definately would circumcise my son! It's much better being circumcised. My brother wasn't circumcised at birth but got problems with his foreskin a few years ago (at 15). He wished he was circumcised at birth just as I am. He's now circumcised too and is very glad he is. I've also read that 1 out of 5 boys get problems with their foreskin if they're not circumcised. So, yep, I would circumcise my son(s)!!
When i was born i had a problem, i cant remember what it was called, but my penis was conected to my skin, therefore leading to me having to have surgery, when i was 2. I suppose you could call this circumsision, also people say it is much healthier to be circumsised