There is no actual evidence that circumcision ever provided any real health benefit, at any point in history ever. Even if it did, the harm of unnecessary surgery before a time of modern sterilization and antibiotics would have claimed FAR more lives than it ever saved.
-
-
THIS. There is literally ZERO anthropological evidence for circumcision EVER starting for "hygiene". Which would have been insane in a stone age world without antibiotics. If anything, it started in prehistory as a proxy for castration rituals or human sacrifice.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
-
Replying to @Surrey_Atheist @Gregory_Malchuk and
Conversations like this are fun and educational, I’m enjoying this. So I have a few questions: 1. Do you disagree with circumcision in general or only as a religious practice? 2. Where’s the evidence for your theory about removing pleasure? My theory is backed up by 2 med papers.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Surrey_Atheist and
(1/?) It isn't "fun" at all, it is horrendous. 1. Freedom of religion covers BELIEF, not practice, & NOT bodily harm. Circumcision does not abide by human rights or medical ethics principles of proportionality of treatment, informed consent, physical integrity, & non harm.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregory_Malchuk @_Undersized_ and
(2/2) 2. Because the early medical field INSTITUTED circumcision in the West specifically as a campaign to damage male sexuality. Because Sorrels found the foreskin to be the most sensitive part of the penis, & bc RACP calls the foreskin the "PRIMARY sensory tissue of the penis".pic.twitter.com/M872xMLWGo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gregory_Malchuk @Surrey_Atheist and
You didn’t answer my questions here- I’m asking if I found you suffered from phimosis or chronic urinary tract infections, can I circumcise you as medical treatment (to avoid your penis falling off) or do you still want it banned?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Surrey_Atheist and
No, because phimosis is treated with steroid cream, tissue expansion, or at worst preputioplasty, and urinary tract infections are not treated AT ALL by circumcision, but with antibiotics.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Gregory_Malchuk @Surrey_Atheist and
Just by the way, why would the U.S government approve a medical campaign to provide an expensive procedure just to harm men? Male circumcision isn’t treated like female circumcision because of the researched medical benefits. I agree with you on the religious part though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Surrey_Atheist and
Because the US medical field is doing everything it can to avoid appearing to have committed the biggest genital mutilation campaign on earth for the past 100 years. Plus huge numbers of religious fanatics. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION reduces HIV tranission by 50%-Kanki & Stallings!!!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That study has been discredited and it’s because of a low availability of data on it. Also, cultures that have more circumcision discourage sex, and therefore less HIV transmission. Why is it not an issue for women but an issue for men? Why not be equally against circumcision?
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.