Personal tools

Talk:Debate: Infant male circumcision

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment, or just click "edit". Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion.

Risks of Foreskin infection can be easily reduced without circumcision

Infant circumcision has only one possible benefit before the onset of sexual activity: circumcised boys appear to have lower rates of urinary tract infections. I agree with the Swedish doctors who argued 20 years ago that this is not a reason to remove the foreskin, but rather to colonize newborns with good bacteria, to make it harder for bad bacteria to get a toehold.--Concerned cynic 18:35, 14 January 2009 (CST)

Sexual behavior is more to blame for sexual health problems than foreskin.

It is absolutely essential to always use a condom during casual sexual encounters and extramarital affairs. Having no foreskin is "healthy" in the trivial sense that nothing can go wrong with an absent organ. Parents should not assume that their sons will be sexually irresponsible in a way that will defy their authority, but instead should teach their sons to respect the opposite sex and themselves. And failing that, to use a condom! --Concerned cynic 18:50, 14 January 2009 (CST)

Attitudes should conform to the natural body, not visa versa.

The first penis a woman sees is usually that of a younger brother. Many older girls get to change some diapers in their own or another family. Then there are the penises of high school and college lovers. Most women encounter in this fashion only one of circumcised or intact, and that becomes the type of penis they prefer, because it is familiar.

The foreskin makes quite a few American women queasy. Others prefer cut but are polite to all comers. Others don't know about it or don't care. And then there are the Wild Ones, the foreskin fetishists, fueled in part by viewing explicit photographs in the privacy of their home offices.

Most European women think that circumcision is a sexually bizarre aspect of Middle Eastern religions. It interferes with manual foreplay, and leads to an overemphasis on fellatio. The foreskin feminizes and makes the flaccid penis less provocative. For such women, the bared glans means that the man behind it is ready for sex, an often unwelcome thought. A bared glans is obscene; a flaccid penis whose tip is covered with foreskin is merely indecent, perhaps even comical. European mothers like the clear distinction between the penises of their young boys, which come to a point and do not suggest sex, and those of their husbands in the throes of passion, with the glans fully exposed, which are highly suggestive.

Attitudes should conform to the normal body, and not vice versa.--Concerned cynic 19:12, 14 January 2009 (CST)


This question is pointless, because once the foreskin becomes fully mobile, washing under it is utterly trivial. To circumcise to prevent smegma would be like ripping out the nails to prevent dirt under the nails.--Concerned cynic 18:42, 14 January 2009 (CST)

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits