The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. (https://youtu.be/D_dzeDvx2QA) The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion, dryness, contact with clothes, and keratinization. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This also decreases the superficial friction applied to the vaginal walls and creates more of a massaging effect. (https://youtu.be/cOZQ-2rV2zQ) Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sorrells.gif) Full study: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847)

https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=28m20

https://youtu.be/Ich3x5XphK4

http://www.beyondthebris.com/2020/09/proposed-circumcision-ban-highlights.html?m=1

https://tenor.com/view/cable-guy-skin-steven-its-gif-18010945

https://tenor.com/view/cable-guy-fore-skin-writing-write-it-out-gif-6164853

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530408/

https://www.projektsexus.dk/project-sexus-in-english

Storm in a glass of water

https://youtu.be/HVKtiFGAn7M

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/09/ebonyi-local-govts-fix-october-to-end-female-circumcision/

https://www.facebook.com/100008013437717/posts/2769903103286777/?sfnsn=mo

>
> https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/maine-democrat-sara-gideon-killed-bills-outlawing-female-genital-mutilation/
> @tom

It seems like this article is disingenuous. It looks like at the time, FGM was already illegal under federal law and there was no evidence that it was happening in the state of Maine - so it seems like it would be redundant to have another law specifically making it illegal in Maine. Democrats were particularly opposed to a line in the bill which made it a felony to knowingly consent to fgm of a minor - they were concerned that immigrants coming from other countries, who had consented to fgm in those countries prior to moving to the United States, would poentially be persecuted in the United States. Perhaps you think they should be, but the article you posted doesn't really engage with the actual issues when it makes the lazy assertion that Democrats were arbitrarily opposed to it due to "racism." Given the context (no legitimate reason for having an extra law, vulnerabilites to immigrants), I frankly do think it was worth questioning the motives for the folks trying to get that law passed ,and whether or not it was related to racism or a desire to seem more hostile to immigrants who come from countries where fgm is routinely performed. https://apnews.com/article/a3f7fab597724dd4bbe32de03cc8f753

Oh dear. Seems so apocalyptic..

I need a sparring partner. Is anyone here for circumcision?

we only perform circumcisions every other Tuesday. 😄

I shouldn't get mine done a third time.

If anyone is able to play the devil's advocate let me know. Mostly the convincing is about culture in my point of view.

I have no clue about why it’s good or bad. So you can tell me your position and I can be a skeptic about it. Without offering alternate information.

Well the problem is that people that want circ are either following a popular tradition (penis fashion) or are convinced that this is the necessary for salvation, or some other important god related thing. the first is easier to dispel, the other is obstinate religion.

I think Travs approach is medical and science related. But that hardly convinces people.

Let’s start with the 1st view then. Wouldn’t it be morally ok to want it as fashion? How are piercings different?

To want it as fashion for yourself, fine.
To want it as fashion on someone else, not fine.

That’s what I thought malachi meant.

When he said for fashion.

For yourself

But the vast, *vast* majority of the time, circumcision is non consensual, non therapeutic, and forced on minors. Hence the ethical issue

Yes, but the vast majority of time it’s forced on minors is not for fashion.

That’s why I didn’t think he meant for someone else

"It looks better/women will prefer it" is an all too common justification given in America, where it is done for secular reasons

Is that even true? Women’s preference being circumcised ?

It's commonly touted for a justification for infant male circumcision in America, yes

I did not know of this view.

I thought secular reasons were science based - or claims to science

Quick google search says CDC and AAP agree on benefits of circumcision - lowered risk of HIV, UTI, penile cancer

A woman may prefer it. But that is likely because it is familiar

Considering the negatives is it worth the risk?

Yea - but 64 % of the 68% women that said they prefer circumcised cited lower risk of STIs (again - quick google search, first academic looking non reddit type result)

If you lob your penis off you will never have penis cancer. I don't see a line for that procedure.

Was that first google search authored by Brian Morris by any chance?

Yes. Of the NCBI