by Strawberry Switchblade on 10-18-2008 12:19 pm
I believe it's mutilation. I do not GIVE a damn if it 'looks better' or stupid shit like that. It's unnecessary, nor is routine infant circumcision even recommended by any major medical body.
As for it reducing the risk of STD's, so does a condom. If you're being exposed anyway, you should be wearing a condom. No need to slice off parts of a man.
It severs nerve, desensitizes his penis, and exposes the very delicate glans penis to foreign textures such as underwear. It is not meant to be removed, it does not hinder sex, and it only takes five extra seconds in the shower to clean. There is no reason to circumcise other than medical reasons (foreskin won't retract/too tight, over-sensitive, etc).
I would never circumcise any son of mine. If he wants it done, he can have it done when he's eighteen and able to make that decision for himself.
Female circumcision was brought about not for religious reasons but to control. She is cut with non-sterile instruments (sometimes just using a rock or glass!!), sewn up to preserve her virginity, and kept that way, sometimes even re-sewn if her husband is going to be leaving for a while. A number of women develop infections and die.
I firmly believe that female circumcision is a larger problem not because it is performed on women, but for it's circumstances.
wake up, you're ALIVE
I'm running out of room
Don't make me say it
There is nothing left in me
Karma me, baby.