So here's the topic–
This also reminds me of something else. I learned few years ago that it's a standard procedure to circumcise male newborns in America. This is something that has been going on since the turn of the 20th century and as a result, majority of all men living in the states are circumcised. Reasons given to support it was to improve cleanliness, reduce risk of STD's (a claim yet to be proven) and to curb masturbation. One of the people spearheading the start of this practice was John Kellogg (yes, the guy who invented the breakfast cereal) a man who designed a penis cage and poured chemicals on woman's clitoris to “allay any abnormal excitement”. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I hardly think a newborn is in any position to argue whether or not he wants this procedure. It kinda makes me glad I was not born there.
I responded with:
Not every hospital in the USA actually performs circumcision, P.P.
More than often they're usually only performed by opinionated doctors or doctors asked by equally opinionated parents.
Doctors can't do that without parents' consent anymore…. especially since how they got sued by some parents a very long while back. apparently in two states, those separate set of parents were rather upset to learn that their doctors had done this to their sons without even asking them if they preferred that their son have everything that they were born with intact. So of course they sued for a lot of money and won.
It's true that it's an common practice, though… simply because of this cultural thing about circumstanced weenies being more “atheistically pleasing”, and such.
It's gotten to the point where there's now more women who say they'll only do it with circumstanced males… because they don't want men who has wangs that looks like armadillos, etc. never mind that there's actually circumstanced males who has penises who look just like the circumstanced ones… especially when erect.
it's true that excess foreskin can lead to difficulties cleaning it, and thus lead to infections. I haven't heard of excess foreskins taking in more STDs than any other penises though…but I guess it could happen if it wasn't cleaned at all.
So a few extra thoughts I had on this topic:
while excess foreskin can certainly lead to infections… I have to wonder how many men were actually born with a HEALTHY amount of foreskin as opposed to being born with too much foreskin?
Because in my Google searches for research into this subject, I've actually seen penises with foreskins that looked no different than any circumcised ones… both erect and unerect. The only difference was that it was often slightly thicker than the avenge circumcised penis in width.
Of course, I've also seen ones where it was certainly A LOT of foreskin to the point where it gathered a lot of skin around the head and thus got coined as the “armadillo look”.
In the cases of excess foreskin, I could see that happening… But somehow I get the feeling that by far the majority of the cases are more for aesthetic reasons more than it's actually for health reasons. After all, surely not THAT many babies are born with excess foreskin?
And, somehow it doesn't just sit well with me if a person purposely alters thier children's bodies like that if it's not for a good reason… like an medical reason.
Thoughts on this?