Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

8

jadedctrl wrote

Sooo, two questions:

  • what the fuck?
  • why is circumcision bad? (or, conversely, good?)
6

Cartoon_Cat wrote

Primarily it's an issue of consent - a baby cannot consent to having its body mutilated.

Secondly, it is a permanent modification of the body that causes a loss of sensitivity. The skin of the head of the penis is supposed to be protected by the foreskin, but when this is removed the head becomes tough.

The foreskin itself is also full of nerves, and a huge positive factor in the enjoyment of sex (for both parties). Those with a foreskin are supposedly more able to feel the 'build-up' to orgasm and therefore have more control over the experience. Those without foreskin report orgasms often 'taking them by surprise', and so sex can be disappointing for both parties.

People claim that removing the foreskin is more hygienic, but this is simply not true. This argument only makes sense if the parents refuse to teach their child basic personal hygiene.

Some people may find they need to be circumcised after/during puberty because their foreskin is too tight compared to their growing body - the important distinction is the consent.

The fact of the matter is that removing the foreskin makes it harder to masturbate. With the equipment provided as standard you can masturbate at will, and some religious-types don't like the idea of that.

7

deadaluspark wrote

Primarily it's an issue of consent - a baby cannot consent to having its body mutilated.

It's two levels of consent here, no less. The consent to have the body part removed, and the consent to sell the body part for far more than it cost to remove it. (Because of course, capitalism.)

I'm fairly sure that the company behind this "treatment" has no intentions to re-compensate the babies whose foreskin was taken. So not only it is an issue of consent, it's also an issue of theft.