Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn’t have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.
Circumcisions should be banned because they are mutilating children’s genitals without consent. At least trans medical procedures have consent.
I think it’s just religious people being hypocrites again. Hard to convince delusional people of facts when they make up what they believe based on the circumstances. The decisions of religious cults shouldn’t have more power than the decisions of individual people. Completely crazy what this country is devolving into
Trans surgical procedures have some of the best outcomes of any major procedures. they are performed on consenting individuals who are always well informed and at or very near adulthood, and only after many other interventions have been ongoing. People who receive these interventions show incredibly low rates of regret (compare for example the percent of people who regret knee replacements or probably circumcisions), and enjoy increased happiness and satisfaction by almost any metric.
Basically every major medical organization in the world (and certainly in America) agrees these interventions are medically useful and should be performed. While there are doctors who dissent, they are in the vast minority and almost never actually work with any trans people, but rather insist all the doctors who do work with trans people must be wrong. It’s not a controversy in the medical world, just the political one.
Then we shall ban dentists too. They never had my consent to touch my teeth.
How many healthy and functional teeth have you had inconsensually removed from your skull by a dentist?
Did they remove your perfectly healthy canines because a bronze-age book said dogs are unclean? If not, get the fuck out of here with your infant penis mutilation apologetics.
There is scientific evidence that circumcision results in the area being cleaner and easier to maintain. I’m not denying it is child mutilation, but you also shouldn’t just sweep it under the rug as religious bullshittery.
And if you shave your head, you don’t have to brush your hair.
Honestly such a weak argument. Having helped my uncircumcised son learn to keep himself clean, I can probably say this myth needs to be laid to rest already. It’s just not true.
I dont get it either. However the American pediatric association and a couple others keep suggesting it’s “cleaner.” I think it’s based on some large global datasets and there are less STIs with circumcised penises? Even WHO recommends it. It seems like recommended people clean themselves would be much easier…
I’m sure there are many body parts we could amputate to help with maintenance.
Let me tell you about my revolutionary way to prevent athlete’s foot! Also, did you know you can prevent testicular cancer with one simple
snipstep?Wouldn’t that require two snips?
“Root and stem” with one rubber band!
it’d be easier to brush your teeth if you didn’t have any teeth
Does your teeth develop phimosis?
No. But, if they were to I reckon if I’d have the dentist look at them and decide what to do then…rather than rip 'em all out preemptively.
Well one is done precautionary as it doesn’t have any big life altering side effects while removing all your teeth does. I understand your enthusiasm but a little medical knowledge wouldn’t hurt no one. It’s also more difficult to get circ done after growing up.
Well one is done precautionary as it doesn’t have any big life altering side effects
I mean, reduced sensation, higher rates of some kinds of sexual difficulty later in life, and like anything that causes pain and stress to a neonate there are signs that it can have long term psychological effects.
You would only notice it if you get it done after growing up. I don’t understand the logic here. Have you been circumcised?
Most cultures in the world don’t circumcise and it doesn’t cause much issue. It’s only the US where it became so common, because the wacko Kellogg had enough money to push his weird ideas, and somehow people still follow it. You should follow his other “preventative” ideas if you think circumcision is such a great idea.
Here’s a good video to get more ideas from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ4ES8mOzYg
If god wanted my parents to cut part of my dick off why did she put it there in the first place? Are you saying god made a mistake?
Maybe it was on purpose. The Abrahamic god is a sadist who apparently fucking loves killing and maiming people, so maybe he was like, “yoooo, you know what would be funny?” and then convinced a bunch of people they should cut part of their babies’ dicks off.
Wasn’t there also that weird ass bible tale where some dude brought another guy 200 foreskins so he could marry the guy’s daughter? If I don’t have one, at least nobody will kill me and take it from me to give to a potential father in law…
I still have to give the little fucker a good scrub to not stink though so the cleanliness thing has got to be bull.
Yeah. I get that it’s supposed to represent how many enemies he killed, but why foreskins, Saul? Could’ve asked for a lot of other things besides dick skin. Like, idk, their weapons or something.
Because you could buy or steal their weapons, but there’s only one way you’re going to end up with a piece of their dick. Also means you don’t get to count enemies who were Jews.
It’s not really about the evidence though.
45 years ago my parents genuinely thought they were doing the right thing by asking the Dr to circumcise me.
They weren’t great at critical thinking and have made numerous poor decisions in their lives as a result of vibe-based reasoning.
You can say I was “mutilated” if you like, but I don’t feel like a victim.
My parents also supported my education, where I learned to be skeptical, and challenge my preconceptions.
As a result, I didn’t have my son circumcised.
I don’t think cleanliness is an excuse for lopping off part of a non-consenting infant.
It would be a lot easier to clean your head if you didn’t have any ears. Should we cut those off of babies too?
Where is this evidence?
So, yeah. To paraphrase, “When reviewed by people without the same clear and obvious cultural bias, circumcision only conclusively provides an incredibly marginal benefit, with evidence lacking for other supposed (and still very marginal) benefits.”
Not just cleaner but you are also less prone to certain infections. I am circumcised, but it was done as a child. Knowing what I know now, I am glad since it decreases the risk for certain cancers and infections.
I never had not have ever heard of anyone I know having infections or cancers because of a foreskin.
Technically, you can’t get foreskin cancer if you don’t have foreskin. Not sure if that is an acceptable reason to cut off part of a non-consenting infant’s genitals.
The vast vast vast majority of the worlds men have foreskins though.
I mean it does reduce the risk of penile cancer (for basically the same reason a mastectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer - less cells means less cells that can turn cancerous), but penile cancer is one of the more rare ones to begin with and the reduction is pretty small.
Some studies have suggested that circumcision may help prevent penile cancer.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
Decreased risk of penile cancer.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections
Suggested. “However, this is unverified”
Okay mate.
Suggested is my phrasing. The studies are pretty conclusive.
The first link says it’s unverified, and also says “suggest”, not your phrasing.
There is a lot of misinformation in this post. Here’s a snippet of my research about the anatomy of the penis and the damage of circumcision causes.
The foreskin has specialized nerve endings called Meissner’s Corpsucles located at the tip in an area called the ridged band. It is connected to the penis by the extension of the shaft skin in areas called the outer foreskin and the inner foreskin. The inner foreskin is rich with sensory receptors and is a inner mucosa similar to the inside of our cheeks. It keeps the glans moist and protected from the environment. The inner foreskin is attached to the head of the penis by a membrane called the frenulum. The frenulum is an erogenous zone that is mostly removed by a circumcision procedure.
When a child or baby is circumcised, the foreskin is forcibly removed from the glans which scars and damages the glans. The foreskin is adhered to the glans like a fingernail. When a boy hits puberty the foreskin naturally retracts. In rare cases, phimosis happens which is when the foreskin is unable to retract. Non-surgical solutions to phimosis are stretching the foreskin over a span of time and/or applying steroid creme.
Circumcision is extremely painful for babies and children. Cortisol spikes in babies when they are circumcised. Babies will pass out during the procedure as many circumcisions are done with inadequate anesthetic.
The foreskin is self-cleaning like the vagina. Rinsing in the shower is enough usually for hygiene. Caregivers who retract the foreskin of their children will damage the child’s genitals. The only person who should retract the foreskin is the children as it will naturally retract with age. Some boys are unable to retract their foreskin until their late teens or early adulthood.
This information is not foreign to the medical world. Most medical and political professionals have a bias for the circumcision ritual. Circumcision is the same for boys as it is for girls as the objective of circumcision is to harm the sexual function of the child.
Modern circumcision for males is extremely harsh as it removes 60-80% of penile skin. Many men do not have frenulums from the procedure. It is possible to repair some of the damage by using mitosis to restore skin coverage. It is not currently possible to repair tissue that was completely removed. Foregen is a non-profit researching ways to completely repair the damage caused by circumcision.
For men impacted by this and want to do something for themselves
- Look into foreskin restoration
- Donate to foregen
Warning that this topic draws a lot of insane people with genital mutilation fetishes. Any of the comments advocating for circumcision are either men who were circumcised against their will, women who circumcised their children and haven’t accepted the truth, or weirdos who want others to suffer.
Thank you so much for writing this up. I really appreciate the detailed post.
Most medical and political professionals have a bias for the circumcision ritual.
I think it’s important to point out that this bias is mostly cultural. In many countries where ritual infant circumcision is the exception instead of the norm, medical personnel do not have a bias towards RIC.
Foreskin restoration is legit (even if it may sound crazy like regrowing limbs). I know we collectively dislike Reddit on here, but the subreddit /r/foreskin_restoration has a really supportive and welcoming community and a lot of resources about how to get started (check their wiki).
It would require that a significant portion of the population admit their parents mutilated them as infants.
For some reason, they refuse to admit they were mutilated without their consent.
Some of them have subsequently mutilated their own sons, and admitting that was mutilation is beyond their capacity.
I was circumcised, I don’t have a problem with that fact. I understand why people do have a problem with circumcision and I don’t have an issue with it being banned.
Don’t try to induce mental trauma in me for my past that I’m not bothered by.
I have been physically punished when I did something bad as a kid. I’m not traumatized by that either but I still think it’s good that it’s illegal nowdays.
I agree. And if people went around claiming you must be traumatized over it and lying to yourself you’d say they’re full of shit. If someone was trying to convince you to be traumatized about it you’d tell them to fuck off.
I don’t think they’re saying people are traumatized. That word has a meaning. They’re saying people have issue reconciling the fact that their parents would do something like that to them and also that their parents are generally good people. Many people would rather not even consider that it wasn’t the right call, because it makes it easier to hold those two beliefs at the same time. However, people make mistakes. Those aren’t contradictory ideas if you can understand that people can be mislead.
Good for you not being bothered by it. But I think it’s rather easy to imagine that it can be a traumatizing experience and lead to psychological or physiological injuries. So it’s a medical procedure that should only be prescribed by doctors or if you are an adult.
Sure, I’m not arguing against that. I’m arguing against this mentality that everyone who has been circumcised should be carrying trauma over it, or must be carrying trauma but are lying to themselves. Don’t say you’re fighting on my behalf for something that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Fair point, not sure somebody is doing it and if so why, but that would be indeed contra productive. If someone does not feel traumatized why would anyone would want to convince them otherwise?
Fair point, not sure somebody is doing it and if so why, but that would be indeed contra productive
The post I was replying to:
For some reason, they refuse to admit they were mutilated without their consent.
For some reason, they refuse to admit they were mutilated without their consent.
I’m not sure that is exactly how they meant it, but I can see you interpret it that way. An unnecessary, irreversible medical operation was performed on you without your consent, but since you are not bothered by it - good for you.
deleted by creator
Babies and children don’t have sex. If you want to take this extreme HIV reduction procedure as an adult you’re free to do so. Or you can use a condom.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a persons who is refusing to admit.
Thanks for demonstrating my point so effectively.
What? They’re not bothered by it how the fuck is that refusing to admit anything? Does that mean if two people get jumped scared in a dark room and one for the rest of their life needs a light on in their room and the other doesn’t that they are secretly traumatized? No it doesn’t.
Also circumcision happens at birth most of the time so many people (myself included) don’t remember it. It should absolutely be illegal but as the other person said don’t tell someone what traumas they faced and how they should be effected.
You’re a clown
so many people (myself included) don’t remember it.
"She doesn’t remember being raped, so it’s ok’.
Also circumcision happens at birth most of the time so many people (myself included) don’t remember it. It should absolutely be illegal but as the other person said don’t tell someone what traumas they faced and how they should be effected.
Just because you don’t remember it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t effect you. Aside from the obvious physical effects, there are studies that suggest that neonatal stressors and pain (such as say amputating part of the baby’s genitals) can have long reaching psychological effects. For example:
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=55727
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the problem with the anti-circumcision movement.
There are good arguments to be had for banning circumcision. Refusing to recognize my autonomy, and insisting you know the “secret trauma of strangers” better than they do is not one of them. It makes you sound like an asshole who doesn’t know what they are talking about and will cause people to think the whole movement is the same way.
For those arguing to ban circumcision: you need to purge assholes like this from your numbers. They are only doing harm and not helping your cause.
Refusing to recognize my autonomy
Glad that, as an infant, you exercised your own autonomy, when your parents decided to circumcise you.
If you did exercise your own autonomy as an adult, then fine. That’s not what we’re talking about.
Your autonomy argument doesn’t work when you refuse to recognize my statements that I am not bothered by the fact that it happened to me. It makes you a blatant hypocrite when you say you are concerned about the autonomy of children but ignore my autonomy as an adult.
Children do in fact need someone to speak for them. When you insist on speaking for me when I am fully capable of speaking for myself and telling you not to, then I’m going to tell you to fuck off and won’t be very receptive to anything else you have to say.
deleted by creator
I have a neutral stance on circumcision. Do what you please. I just wish people like you could try to prove a point without using “mutilation” over and over to make it sound worse than it actually is. It puts an agenda on your point and biases it. There’s nothing mutilated about it. It’s just altered.
If you consider this to be mutilation then that would also mean you think any gender affirming surgery is also mutilation. And one could much easier argue that converting a penis to a vagina is far more mutilating than just removing some extra skin from a penis.
So if you’re trying to convince people to stop circumcision, stop using overly dramatic words and just explain why it’s not necessary. Otherwise I’ll just roll my eyes at people like you.
If you consider this to be mutilation then that would also mean you think any gender affirming surgery is also mutilation.
No one gets gender reassignment surgery until they can concentyi it as an adult.
False equivalence.
Here’s another question along the same lines - my friend when I was a kid developed gynecomastia, commonly known as “breast knots” when he was 14. They’re completely harmless, but they made it look like he had boobs. Cute little A cups on this otherwise very boy-presenting person. For some reason, no one thought it was “against God’s plan” or “mutilating his body” or “part of the gender agenda” when this 14 year old boy had a purely cosmetic double mastectomy. I wonder why no one batted an eye at a child receiving gender-affirming cosmetic surgery just because he wanted to in this particular case.
I’ve never understood the American obsession with MGM (male genital mutilation). But it seems that a large percentage of your population has had it done. So from an outsider perspective it seems like it must be a cultural thing to your country. So for laws to exist that ban it (or at least make it harder to authorise) you’d first need a cultural shift, then. Enough political will for laws to be passed.
It really isn’t cultural. In the early 1900s, William Kellogg (of Kellogg’s) was a puritanical Christian. He hated the idea of masturbation more than anything, so he created Corn Flakes to be a cereal so bland it would kill your libido and prevent you from masturbating. He also was a proponent of circumcision as a means of preventing masturbation because it would make the penis too tight that stroking it would be painful. Americans bought into his propaganda that circumcised penises are “cleaner” and then it just became “well, I’m circumcised, and my son’s penis should look like mine!”
No one said that the average American was intelligent.
Sounds pretty cultural to me, something that’s persisted for a hundred and twenty years (What’s that a quarter of your country’s history?) based on an over religious ideal and pushed by a capitalist.
I consider “culture” to have a deeper meaning to a population, at least moreso than “my dick’s cut, so my kid’s gonna have a cut dick because I’m not aware of basic hygiene practices!”
“my dick’s cut, so my kid’s gonna have a cut dick
Change the sex and genitalia in question, and this is basically what drives FGM. It’s mostly women who had it done to them that drive the practice forward. That’s how traditional practices work in general - you repeating what happened to you with your offspring, often long past the point where the original purpose (if any) has any value.
He also was a proponent of circumcision as a means of preventing masturbation because it would make the penis too tight that stroking it would be painful
… well, I for one am very glad he was mistaken in this point.
Personally I find it a lot more disturbing that intersex babies are still assgined a binary gender by a doctor and then get surgery to shape their genitals. The parents are often scaremongered and pressured into consenting and the affected people don’t know it was done to them until firmly into adulthood. It’s often a sterilising surgery too.
If you are against doctors doing gender changing surgery, please start with the babies? But oh no! Then the argument that there are only two genders falls apart.
What the fuck, I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for sharing
Is it still practice? Even when I studied, long time ago, I thought it was rather consensus that it’s gets worse results in the the long run.
It still happens, but I don’t believe it’s as common as it once was (per capita intersex person, which is also a very small number)
Medical progress is sometimes frustrating slow.
Look at what happened to David Reiner if you really want to be sickened.
I’m pretty sure that I’m intersex myself and had something done to me when I was an infant, but there is no way for me to ever find out. My only evidence is apparently my dong is pretty massive for a trans dude, which is a nice thing to hear from a nurse.
Personally I find it a lot more disturbing that intersex babies are still assgined a binary gender by a doctor and then get surgery to shape their genitals. The parents are often scaremongered and pressured into consenting and the affected people don’t know it was done to them until firmly into adulthood. It’s often a sterilising surgery too.
I mean, yeah? Could we maybe agree that medically unnecessary genital surgery should be off the table for infants and small children, regardless of what surgery we’re talking about?
Then the argument that there are only two genders falls apart.
Only in the way that polydactyly makes the argument that humans are normally born with 5 fingers on each hand fall apart. It’s just that people with atypical numbers of fingers aren’t a political hot button of the day.
As someone whose circumcision worked out perfectly fine and can’t imagine myself without one, I still think it should be banned for babies and children under 18 for any reason other than medical necessity. Even a slight risk of problems outweighs the ‘my dad did it and he turned out fine’ or religious tradition arguments.
It should not be banned for adults who voluntarily choose it for themselves though.
In which case it is cosmetic surgery.
One does not Botox an infant.
In some cases it’s functional. Not all genitals grow as they’re supposed to.
… And that would be the very very very very rare medically necessary intervention.
Stop conflating medically necessary intervention and mutilation.
Some people are born with webbed toes, we don’t cut them up because “my dad did it to me and I’m alright”.
Too many very for today’s society where genetic anomalies and cancerous growths are on the rise.
The problem is it’s quite difficult to get circumcision after adulthood
Is that because it is not medically necessary often and there is a lack of expertise, or because of risk aversion in the medical community? If there was suddenly a drive for adult circumcision I would imagine plastic surgeons would be all over it.
I’m guessing lack of expertise since most people who grow up with a foreskin are going to be comfortable with one just like I am comfortable with what I grew up without and the demand is pretty low.
No but in terms of the medical process. It’s quite painful and needs a few days rest.
Cutting a piece of your baby’s junk off for no other reason then everyone does it is a really weird thing that I’ve never been able to wrap my head around.
I’m not religious but I at least can understand if it’s for religious reason, there’s a point to it, even if I don’t agree with/understand the point. But people seem to just do it for no reason aside from it’s what people do. It’s forced genital mutilation anyway you look at it.
There are medical reasons to remove. If the foreskin isn’t cleaned well (challenging for toddlers) it can get infected which prevents it from separating, which is very dangerous.
If your foot isn’t cleaned well, it can get infected and potentially cause sepsis, which is very dangerous. Should we be removing children’s feet?
No, obviously not. The time for invasive, nonconsentual medical intervention is when it is medically necessary, and circumcision does not fit the bill.
“The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.”
“It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost.” - Meaning circumcision is quite a damaging procedure, which means the justification for it must be high. And as a preventive measure for which the things being prevented won’t happen for a decade and a half or longer, isn’t justified.
If the foreskin isn’t cleaned well (challenging for toddlers)
Newborns should not have their foreskin pulled back for cleaning, as the separation can cause damage. IIRC it’s only a bit before puberty that it is safe to gently (not forcibly) pull back the foreskin.
Nah mate. They had to remove mine because is overgrew my gland and was so tight that I would have pee between the foreskin and the gland layong around, and it was impossible to unhook. The alternative would have been to cut it open and have dumbo’s ear flapping everytime I’d take my dick out. No partner ever complained, and I don’t give à shit about it.
I wouldn’t circumsize a kid if it wasn’t necessary, but when an operation takes place specifically for medical reasons, it’s because there is no other solution. Like when a foot id so gangrenous that you have to remove it or it will propagate the necrosis to the leg.
Are you trolling? Or just finding it very difficult to understand what you are replying to? I’m genuinely asking here.
“Nah mate”, to someone saying it has to be a medical necessity… Following it up with “it was a medical necessity in my case”, and then arguing the same point of it needing to be a medical necessity… It’s just a bit too on-the-nose, that it seems more likely to be intentional, than just… Well, what it looks like
Being necessary for medical reasons is a good reason. Doing it because “it gets dirty” and “it looks better” is not. Unfortunately the latter is the most common reason.
until puberty starts the foreskin is attached to the penis. Just like how the finger nails are attached. It can’t get dirt under there until you pull it back.
Poor hygiene is not a sufficiently good reason to remove
I don’t know man. The entire world for most of human history has gone on just fine without circumcision. I’m eternally grateful I was not born in the US and was brought here as a child so I didn’t get my foreskin cut.
It’s always an interesting conversation with women. Some prefer it, some don’t, most don’t care. But it is a bit exotic in some areas of the country. Not so much in heavily immigrant areas.
For example California and Florida the vast majority of people are not circumcised. In Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, etc and other states in mostly white America it’s close to 90%.
circumcision is in the Bible, gender reassignment surgery is not. That’s where they’re going to hang their hats… on the invisible sky ghost.
Um, ackshually, eunuchs are in the Bible, including Jesus saying that some people “become eunuchs” to get closer to God. So…
“Hey, there are parts of the Bible I like and parts I don’t like.”
I also want to say, if you read the Bible front to back, it’s the story of a people fucking up. The people do terrible things, a hero teaches them to be better, the heroes turn villain (or, rarely, wander off into the sunset when their role is complete), and the institutions rot.
It’s not a story of a better people, it’s a story of people doing better
You’re absolutely right about your point, it all comes down to religion. But the procedure is actually sex reassignment surgery. Gender is the way you interact with the world, sex is the physical characteristics of your body.
Not trying to be pedantic or rude. It’s a common mistake and in a lot of casee the terms can be used interchangeably. Just trying to be informative for people scrolling by. :)
i’m going to be pedantic and say that the term “sex reassignment surgery” (SRS) has fallen out of favor and use, and is now most often referred to as “gender reassignment surgery” or GRS, but this is also an inaccurate term for the reason you describe.
The accurate term is “Genital Reconstructive Surgery”.
Because transgender (anti)rights have nothing to do with religion; it’s simply the transgender people’s turn to be thrown under the bus so the conservatives can continue virtue signalling.
On one hand I oppose circumcision, on the other hand I think we’re getting far too comfortable letting politicians ban medical procedures.
My alternative perspective is no surgery on someone too young to request it unless it cannot wait until they’re old enough to do so.
Kids can’t get plastic surgery even if they wanted to, but can get circumcised even if nobody asked them? It’s just dumb.
Can’t cosmetic surgeries can range from things like circumcision, fixing a deviated septum, and something like botox? They’re often not seen as “necessary,” but they can be recommended to improve quality of life. I think this gets conflated because maybe breast implants do drastically improve someone’s quality of life, but doctors (I think) should err on the side of having a patient wait for more permanent procedures. It’s still between the doctor and patient, ultimately, but in cases where a kid can’t consent there can be valid arguments. I don’t think circumcision meets that threshold a majority of the time, and even when it does it can usually wait.
Circumcision is irreversible mutilation of genitals forced by religion. At least Christians just dunk you in water.
Bruh. America cuts 80% of their junk, looky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
Pretty fucked up actually, not to mention i bet they charge you between two and ten thousand dollars to do it, too.
Yeah, but it’s not forced by religion - it primarily got started in the US because the guy who invented corn flakes though it would keep boys from masturbating because it reduces sensation. He also had a procedure for girls (involving scarring the clit with acid) but that didn’t catch on and even if it had would be very illegal now because we actually care about protecting girls.
You do realize that the Torah, the book that gives the penis chopping instructions, is included in the Old Testament, right? This whole non-consensual penis mutilation tradition is definitely a Christian practice, too.
Never knew, TIL.
To be fair, in the new testament, Jesus basically tells the Christians that they don’t have to follow all of the old testament, so not all Christian denominations practice it. Still, some sects just ignore the good Jesus stuff, in general. A lot of Christians in the US still have the procedure done to their kids, but it’s mainly for cosmetic reasons, nowadays.
no its not for the same reason why christian don’t eat kosher meals. Basically that was part of the old contract with god and the new contract does not include circumcision. That’s why it was rare in christian communities
Cosmetic or optional surgery should be the choice of the patient
deleted by creator
we *should *ban circumcision, it’s genital mutilation and children cannot consent
Because one is ordered by their favorite imaginary character in their favorite fairy tale book.
Except its not even, at least for christians. Its actually even considered a sin for catholics. https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-283.html
It became popular in the US because it was thought that it would stop people from masturbating. That’s why its an American thing and not a religious vs non religious thing (except for jewish people).
Does such an order actually exist or do they pull it out of their ass in some convenient interpretation?
Probably the latter. Prepuces are actually a sign of the pact of the god with the Hebrews. Specifically.
Because the laws are being pushed on a religious basis, not a rational one.
Is circumcision even a religious thing for most Americans?
It’s because originally they thought it would prevent masturbation, which was considered self harm.
Since then it is because of aesthetics and hygiene. Both of which are something that the person should decide as an adult.
I think it’s more inertia than anything.
Circumcision is so weird. Like why are non religious people opting for that so much in the US?
It’s a myth that circumcision is a religious practice in the US. It was actually started by a bunch of 19th Century health obsessed, vegetarian, noFap weirdos. It was a health fad to save your body, not your soul.
I mention the vegetarianism to emphasize that these people were progressive, it’s just that many of their ideals were garbage.
It is a religious practice for Jews … I completely agree with your point of it being a “health fad” for non-jews though.
Especially considering that it’s bad for sex
