You really don't know anything, do you?
Removing the foreskin is hardly mutilation. There is ZERO effect on sexual function and reproductive success from circumcision.
Look, I GET that you think foreskins are hot.
That doesn't mean that they DO anything functional, biologically.
Many animals with a penis SHEATHE their penis
WHY? Because their penis would otherwise be exposed to such dangers as, say, tall, sharp bladed sawgrass. Or dragging across the ground. So evolution actually resulted in bodies that retract ALL or nearly all of the penis INSIDE their bodies.
But In most Primates, the penis is NOT sheathed
it hangs out there, because primate lifestyles to not expose the penis shaft to significant danger. Having an exposed willy has NO negative effect on primate sexual function or success, so we DON'T retract our dicks into our bodies.
The "sheath" in primate evolution has gotten smaller, and smaller
WHY? Well, because it isn't necessary. Just as the human Appendix has withered away to a tiny fraction of its size in other animals
because it offers no significant survival or reproductive advantage to human beings.
If a trait offers an advantage, no matter HOW slight, that trait is preserved.
If a trait results in a DISadvantage, no matter how small, that trait is gradually eliminated from the population over time.
BUT- when a trait offers NO advantage
and NO particular disadvantage
then there is NO pressure on the trait either way
no pressure to RETAIN functionality
no pressure to eliminate a problem
and so the genes that create that trait DRIFT
they mutate, randomly.
Some of those mutations will be meaningless
but, eventually, some of those mutations will cause Problems.
Like, say, having wisdom teeth
sprouting in a jaw that has evolved to be Too small for that many teeth.
Or human susceptibility to appendicitis.
The very structure of the human foreskin, compared morphologically to other animals, Proves that the foreskin is a vestigial sheath
and that there HAS been pressure on our evolution to eliminate the sheath as being disadvantageous
Because of drift
a significant percentage of uncircumcised men WILL have complications cause by too much frenulum tissue, or too tight a foreskin, ( preventing the exposure of the glans ) This proves that the trait is vestigial.
and, by the way
. a tour of mammalian, avian and reptilian biology will demonstrate that in every OTHER species
the sheath is so formed as to allow FULL exposure of the Glans of the penis. In Human beings, the foreskin is OFten formed as to Not allow full exposure of the glans to stimulation.
This proves that the trait is NOT Functional as a fully retractile cover for the glans.
And, listen
SOME people are born with a vestigial TAIL.
If your child was born with a tail, you would't think twice about having it lopped off in infancy, for no other reason than to save him the ridicule and embarrassment of his childhood friends someday finding out.
The fact is that, at this point in time, human beings protect their genitals with clothing. And that the conditions inside the foreskin are especially perfect for harboring bacteria, viruses, and even fungal infections. The SKIN of the foreskin interior has been proven to be particularly prone to infection.
And men who are uncut are far more likely to get penile cancer.
There is ZERO data to support the claim that uncut cocks are more sensitive, or offer more pleasure.
Men who have been circumcised AS adults after being sexually active WITH a foreskin are almost exactly evenly divided as to whether they like sex better with, or without.
But here's the final issue. NO ONE is saying that you should be FORCED to circumcise YOUR child. But those who oppose circumcision ARE trying to FORCE other people to NOT circumcise their children.
They are busybodies who want to shove their way of thinking down other people's throats by force of law. No better than the crowd that would outlaw gay marriage, or throw women in prison for getting an abortion.
I respect your right to elect to leave your kids uncut.
How about the same courtesy for those of us who see our parental responsibility differently than you do?
I have shown that ALL of the 'arguments' of the Anti-circ crowd are utter horseshit. Shown that science proves circumcision has quantifiably positive benefits. And proven that the foreskin is a vestigial and non-functional remnant of a penis sheath
that in its current expression causes complications that inhibit sexual function MORE OFTEN than routine circumcision.
The truth is you don't want to CUT foreskins off because you LIKE the way they look or feel
and/or because you BELIEVE they serve a purpose that you can't actually demonstrate
or believe that everything "natural" is in some way "better".
But those are just belief systems, unsupported by actual research or theory.
And, hey, you can believe what you like. You can make your own choices based upon those beliefs.
But my preference is not only what I believe
. its also supported by real data.
Surely THAT should be enough to allow me the freedom to make the informed parental choice that is supported by that data.
I have never HAD an STD. Never known anyone who had one. That is partly because everyone I grew up with in 1950s to 1960s USA was circumcised.
And trust me
when YOUR son's wife is pregnant with your first grandson
and they are reading in the paper about how 10% or all teens in the future will get life threatening sexual infections by the the time their child is a teen
thanks to increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics
they will most definitely WANT the option to take whatever measures will offer their child the greatest resistance to contracting those infections.
