Well, we have. Its the normal one about not doing unnecessary, essentially cosmetic genital surgery on babies who cannot consent. If people want to make circumcision an exception to the 'don't chop bits off your kids w/out good reason' rule, they need to make a strong case.https://twitter.com/JamesHeartfield/status/934841329334603777 …
-
-
For sexual purposes. Less chance of injury, more versatility in technique, less issues with unpleasant sensitivity, and reportedly lower chances of STDs. Guys circumcised young tend to grow into the jacket, older guys usually stuck with some loose ends.
-
Is there evidence of this? Brits seem to do OK! I'm surprised something which caused problems with sex wouldn't have been dealt with by natural selection.
-
Evidence would be hard to find. This is a politicized subject to put it mildly. What I say is purely my own experience. And NS only selects for items preventing reproduction. It doesn't get that bad.
-
Even making it slightly more difficult or less effective should have been enough. Penises got optimised! That's why they have a plunger on the end! XD
-
The plunger on the end is to extract competitors' sperm. That makes survival of your genes a lot more likely. Having to mess around with foreskin? Not an issue preventing fertilization.
-
Exactly. Well, if it doesn't make sex even a little bit more difficult or tiny bit less successful, it can stay.
-
It makes sex more difficult for some men, and less successful for a good number more. I think a better question would be what reasons we find valid to circumcise.
-
But then these men would have fewer offspring and foreskins would recede surely? Why would there be skin which made procreation harder?
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.