Denmark voting on a ban for male circumcision.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'm gonna put on a semi serious face and try to have meaningful dialogue about this subject. I'm eager to hear from all sides and i'll do my dardnest to articulate myself.

From the information i've gathered about the issue, the health benefits of ciricumscision is minimal and places a minor inconvenience on the man with an unclipped penis at best. When I talked to my family about it, the reasoning I received from my mother and sisters was that the procedure was warranted because of several health related problems as a man ages.

My opinion on the subject depends solely on the the health dilemma that faces people when they decide whether or not to get the procedure on themselves, their children, or whoever they have authority over.

If the health effects are manageable without the procedure or if the "health reasons" are deemed as petty, I would be for a ban on ciricumcision. If this were the case, such a procedure would be similar to cutting off the clitoris; it takes away an erogenous zone uneccessiarly.

When you take away an erogenous zone uneccessiarly, you are also taking away someone's ability to gain happiness from sex. If there is no decent reason to deprive someone of additional utility, the action is deemed very unethical by me.

[Catta]

Neuro-syphillis?


So if you can't circumcise your kid, can you also not pierce their ears? Since that "mutilates" their ears for life.

Syphilis affects the brain quite dramatically. Hence the joke.

[Deleted]

I do find it amusing that the biggest argument for mandatory circumcision is based on HIV and people that do not have access to a shower, so Africa then. The rest of the world seems to manage quite well with willy skin.

[Deleted]

I'm gonna put on a semi serious face and try to have meaningful dialogue about this subject. I'm eager to hear from all sides and i'll do my dardnest to articulate myself.

From the information i've gathered about the issue, the health benefits of ciricumscision is minimal and places a minor inconvenience on the man with an unclipped penis at best. When I talked to my family about it, the reasoning I received from my mother and sisters was that the procedure was warranted because of several health related problems as a man ages.

My opinion on the subject depends solely on the the health dilemma that faces people when they decide whether or not to get the procedure on themselves, their children, or whoever they have authority over.

If the health effects are manageable without the procedure or if the "health reasons" are deemed as petty, I would be for a ban on ciricumcision. If this were the case, such a procedure would be similar to cutting off the clitoris; it takes away an erogenous zone uneccessiarly.

When you take away an erogenous zone uneccessiarly, you are also taking away someone's ability to gain happiness from sex. If there is no decent reason to deprive someone of additional utility, the action is deemed very unethical by me.

There are zero health reasons for removing a foreskin unless you've got something like Phimosis or Paraphimosis.

[THE Bigzoman]

There are zero health reasons for removing a foreskin unless you've got something like Phimosis or Paraphimosis.

The ciricumcision is nothing more then an outdated habit with no reason to continue whatsoever.

There's no reasons to remove an erogenous zone from a man unless you're a tumblrists that believe that sexual stimulation is a primary motivator for rapists.

[Stinkbag]

I love all the people who pulled the "Better cut off peoples arms and legs". You must be pretty dumb to compare a piece of skin being removed to a limb. Sorry to inform you but a piece of skin on your dick isn't the same as removing a arm that lets you pick things up and a leg that allowed you to walk.

[Kasierith]

Necroing an extremely contentious topic with a post flaming half of the people in the discussion really isn't appropriate, so going to just close this now.