You should probably tell me why, because it seems like I’m right here. A lateral cut along your penis does get dangerously close to the urethral artery. But no need to be upset, if you have a qualification or evidence otherwise, I’m all ears.
-
-
No. Circumcision was recommended in your medical paper as being for recurring infection or where tissue scarring occurs.
-
These are the uses (excuses) that doctors have come up with for it in modern times. It's not the reason why it was originally prescribed in america, it's not the reason why it was prescribed in religion. Those were both about damaging sexual function:pic.twitter.com/SD11hqaBWR
-
Just imagine being one of these doctors when the sexual revolution of the past century hit. They made their careers on damaging kids sexually, and now suddenly that's a bad thing? They've been scrambling to justify it ever since, so people won't sue or try to get revenge or w/e
-
General surgeons do more than just circumcision, they don’t need to justify their practices to keep their job, you can’t suggest that circumcision is a religious practice because it was originally religious.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not saying it's impossible for it to be necessary to remove a foreskin. Just like we might need to lose a finger or a leg or an eye. But we should regard the loss of this extremely sensitive, pleasurable, functional valuable tissue the same as any other part of our body.
-
Finland is the baseline for medically necessary genital mutilation of males (since it is never done routinely there)--1 in 16,000 cases
-
Closer to 1/17,000, with a literal zero infant circumcision rate.
End of conversation
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.