CDC still promoting barbaric mutilation of infant boys

dakboy · 2009-08-26T18:50:54+00:00

calling circumcision barbaric is sensationalist, but false

Forcibly removing a body part from a day-old infant without anesthesia isn't "barbaric"?

Have you ever seen a video of it being done?

Li17 · 2009-08-26T02:58:45+00:00

Oh please, stop with the hyperbole, calling circumcision barbaric is sensationalist, but false. From a medical perspective there are, and have been, reasons for circumcision other than HIV prevention. Improper cleaning of the foreskin can lead to urinary tract infections (interesting tidbit, during Vietnam, men who were not circumcised experienced something called "jungle rot" because their penis spent so much time submerged in wet swaps that the area under the foreskin get infected).

Also, the widely claimed "it decreases sexual pleasure" is still under a great deal of debate, and some studies even indicate that circumcised males may have an easier time reaching orgasm (source).

So at this point, its not fair to say it is necessarily "good", but there is very little evidence to suggest that it is bad either.

Title	CDC still promoting barbaric mutilation of infant boys
Author	dakboy
Upvotes	4
Comments	2
Date	August 24, 2009 8:42 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9dpsw/cdc_still_promoting_barbaric_mutilation_of_infant/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/cdc-still-promoting-barbaric-mutilation-of-infant.1053204 https://theredarchive.com/post/1053204

Comments