I'd take the minute chance of complications from a male circumcision than foreskin complications and having to get a circumcision later in life
Yeah that minute saved not having to maintain an uncircumcised penis adds up over the years and in some ways improves quality of life. It's a useless piece of skin that just collects junk and may or may not improve an orgasm by 2%.
You're arguing as if one is so much better than the other when the reality of the situation is weighing the pros and cons of both. Being adults parents who might possibly know a thing about two about dealing with human sex organs, I have no issue with them making the decision for their baby boy.
Well naturally europeans will prefer uncircumcised and americans wont
Is it...functional? I'd be afraid that tearing/pinching would be more common. That's amazing they can do that!
Maybe O=)
But that being said my bf's is circumcised, and it's the only one I've ever known. So I guess.
I'd try and pitch it as an experiment for science, but really, no one would fall for it.
Isn't one a sexual lobotomy and the other cosmetic?
I think if they both produced the same results there wouldn't be any double standard.
"If you want to control people, if you want to feed them a pack of lies and dominate them, keep them ignorant. For me, literacy means freedom." - LaVar Burton.
"Imagine coming across a mentally disabled person who was not only drunk, high, but had a full frontal lobotomy leaving little to no intelligence left in their body.
He would be NORMAL, compared to me."