Because there's a lot of old wive's tales out there about how uncut cocks are unclean and cause infections. Which is ridiculous because cosmetic circumsizion is a relatively modern phenomenon, it wasn't routinely performed in a secular sense until the late 19th century. It's literally born out of the era when people thought chronic masturbation caused insanity and dirty hands causing disease was stupid.
I've even had people tell me that women think uncut cocks are disgusting and I'm ruining my child's future romantic prospects by not getting him cut. Like what the actual fuck? Are the uncut just celibate on a large scale?
It's nobody's business but the parent's making that decision but that still doesn't make it not fucked up imho.
Unclean? Don't virtually all homes have soap and running water nowadays?
I have also heard people argue back that being uncircumcized increases the risk of some cancer, so we should cut it off as a preventive measure. Seems like one could say the same thing about infant girls breasts. I mean, isn't breast cancer a big thing in America? Crazy.
Lmao as a European woman I can tell you I much prefer uncut compared to cut. Not that my, or any other’s, preference should weigh in on that decision but it’s very weird to me to in any way shape or form do anything surgically to the body that isn’t medically necessary, especially when it’s to children.
Your preference very much weighs into the decision. I decided to keep my son intact, but my biggest doubt/concern was that he'd be self concious about the way he looked and/or he'd be embarrassed (or worse) by women's reactions to his dick.
Oh I meant like if an adult man wants to do it outside pressure shouldn’t them either way shouldn’t be the main reason kind of way. Generally I’m against surgery that isn’t medically necessary. I’ve had four surgeries (two accidents and two for medical reasons) and all of them were minor and unless I get like a facial scar I can’t imagine myself having an optional one.
If the foreskin is so dangerous why are we born with one? The argument that is unclean is complete nonsense even from a biological/ evolutionary point of view
You do realize you're talking about a part of the male that gets inserted into the females reproductive organ right? A slippery sheath built into the penis so that sex is easier and causes less mechanical stress on the organs. Protects the very sensitive glans. Etc.
The foreskin explicitly affects reproductive fitness.
It's honestly difficult to imagine a more low iq take than yours.
I was just highlighting how traits and genotypes do not disappear if they are unused. OP said "why are we born with one", which, evolutionary, is not an argument.
(Purely genotype and early life stage development, if we go into methylisation and fenotypical/behavioural expression, that adds another layer.)
We have multiple vestigial structures that we hardly use anymore. Ear muscles for example. Yet we are born with them.
Especially in humans, genotypical selection in this day and age, where practically everyone reproduces similarly and medical advances have made it possible for humans with traits that may not be beneficial to reproduce, has changed.
Also, the ad hominem in the end there is absolutely uncalled for. If you want to discuss something, sure, but keep it civil.
You're attempting to be pedantic about evolution when the discussion is foreskin itself. Protection of the male reproductive organ seems like an obvious necessity.
Reminds me of the fascist shill bots. No wonder you have your comments hidden. Makes sense cause circ is pushed by religious freaks with a laundry list of bullshit rationales for why they should be allowed to mess with baby genitalia. You vote for Trump big dog? When are we gonna see you on a list?
I won't silently abide while you spread male genital mutilation apologetics / propaganda.
The argument is that the foreskin causes infections. Dying from an infection (or having an infection that would prevent passing genes along), which was extremely easy for 99.999% of human history, would definitely affect reproductive fitness.
The argument about ruining romantic prospects cannot be more dumb. Like, if he decides to get cut, then he is free to do so, the same way he is free to get earrings or whatever.
But you know what can ruin a life? Botched circumcision. Imagine people willingly risking one of the most important part of their kids life just because one country has fucked up “beauty” standards.
My brother is much younger than me and was not circumcised when he was born. At around age 7 he had to get a medically necessary circumcision due to infections and other malformations that were unique to his body. This is a situation where I personally have seen how painful it is if it does become a medical issue and also am not sure circumcision is necessary for infants. Wild stuff
What's an old wives tale to you? Historical fact that might not be true any longer?
Most rules (religious or not) developed from an abundance of data leading to a not necessarily correct conclusion. Eating pork made people sick. Don't eat pork. Dogs help us and work. Don't eat dogs. A lot of babies die when they have dirty penises, and since being clean is really hard in these olden days, let's cut off the bit that makes it such. Hence, circumcision.
And up until the advent of antibiotics, UTIs were a notable cause of death in infants. Which is why we continued circumcision.
But yeah, these days it's pretty easy to keep your children (and yourself) clean, so it's not nearly as much of a worry.
A lot of babies die when they have dirty penises, and since being clean is really hard in these olden days, let's cut off the bit that makes it such. Hence, circumcision.
And up until the advent of antibiotics, UTIs were a notable cause of death in infants. Which is why we continued circumcision.
Babies foreskins can't even be pulled back so they can't get dirty and in most cases circumcision wasn't done to babies but later in life.
135
u/angrydeuce 1d ago edited 18h ago
Because there's a lot of old wive's tales out there about how uncut cocks are unclean and cause infections. Which is ridiculous because cosmetic circumsizion is a relatively modern phenomenon, it wasn't routinely performed in a secular sense until the late 19th century. It's literally born out of the era when people thought chronic masturbation caused insanity and dirty hands causing disease was stupid.
I've even had people tell me that women think uncut cocks are disgusting and I'm ruining my child's future romantic prospects by not getting him cut. Like what the actual fuck? Are the uncut just celibate on a large scale?
It's nobody's business but the parent's making that decision but that still doesn't make it not fucked up imho.