Yes! Humans literally evolved to have a foreskin so it has to provide an advantage beyond any added risks, even under pre-historic hygiene conditions.
If it truly posed a health risk then that would immediately impact an individual’s ability to reproduce and it would have shrunk and disappeared over thousands of years of breeding.
As a general rule, I don’t presume to tell people living under wildly different and much harsher circumstances that I know better survival methods than they do.
Well, I might recommend they use some of their scarce water supplies and soap instead of spit for this particular example, but other than that.
What a dumb thing to say. I am more than comfortable telling people living under wildly different and much harsher circumstances that cutting their babies dicks is not conducive to a thriving society. It turns out people with foreskins drink and eat just as much as those without, and they have the added benefit of never dying from their penis getting infected because someone really wanted to cut part of it off.
It’s not that it doesn’t have any benefits, but also doesn’t offset the downsides but seems easier to keep proper hygene as I’ve heard horrible stories like guys who were never taught proper hygene.
a 10 times lower risk of a baby getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in his first year of life (1/1000 odds)
no risk of infants and children getting infections under the foreskin
easier genital hygiene
much lower risk of getting cancer of the penis (1/10,000+)
a possibly lower risk of men getting sexually transmissible infections (STIs) than men who are not circumcised (although these studies have not been scientifically confirmed and safe sex practices are far more effective in preventing these infections).
Read back, like I said several times I don’t support circumcision. However, there are benefits that don’t just disappear because of the cons. Everything has pros and cons that should be accounted for.
And the fact of bringing unrelated debate into it just makes it look unorganized and unfounded basis. But you can message me if you want to debate about finger nails and removing parts of the ear…
I think we’re all on the same side here but I think that person’s analogy is valuable because it demonstrates the disconnect in logic between the perceived value of the “health risks” that are being avoided versus the risks, harm, and morals of permanently modifying someone’s body against their will under false pretenses.
I mean, like I said I nearly died and don’t support it. Although, there are benefits and chance of infection is very low at least in a 1st world country. There are many other things with higher chance that could impact a child, like the high chance of foreskin infection.
Balanitis in a small degree nearly affects all men with an intact foreskin. The vast majority of cases are quite mild. Most child get what’s called chemical balanitis which is just a small amount of redness associated with the foreskin releasing. True infected balanitis occurs in approximately 5% of the population of boys of less than 5 years of age.
And I guess its a common problem, go figure people and kids especially don’t practice proper hygene.
Having had that, it’s extremely mild, a tiny bit of discomfort for a couple days. Not worth removing the foreskin for. We don’t cut off people’s ears because kids often get ear infections.
And that’s your experience and opinion. The article states that 5% have more than mild cases, and some should be medically removed for medical reasons.
Everything has pros and cons, but I’m not making the choice for anyone else. That’s their choice, but it should still be a choice.
And I don’t see how cutting off an ear would reduce ear infections, as it’s typically the canal that’s infected, not the ear. A lot more involved, and I can’t find any benefits like I could for circumcision. Although, you could be onto something as I’m sure there is data for piecing infections? Is this the reason for changing topic?
I’ve purely stated facts with supported links and haven’t seen the same. Constructive discussion is great but that has yet to be seen yet. So I’m probaby gonna move along with my day and hope you have a great day as well.
The point is removing body parts before they get infected, because there is a small chance they’ll get infected is idiotic. There’s plenty of downsides to being circumcised, like caratanized glans, leading to reduced sensitivity, and difficulty finishing. Not to mention the many times too much skin is taken off, which can make all erections for said dicks owner very painful.
And a choice, sure, for adults, who’ve lived with their foreskins and understand what they are losing, not babies or young children who’re not at an age to understand what’s being taken away.
As for the ear, not having an outer ear would make it easier to clean the ear canal, and for wax to drip out, so it would reduce canal infections. But we don;t do that, because it’s better to just treat the few infections, than to remove someone’s organs as a baby.
It’s not better for hygiene if you just wash your dick when you shower.
Yes! Humans literally evolved to have a foreskin so it has to provide an advantage beyond any added risks, even under pre-historic hygiene conditions.
If it truly posed a health risk then that would immediately impact an individual’s ability to reproduce and it would have shrunk and disappeared over thousands of years of breeding.
Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution vs one dude a couple thousand years ago who really wanted a piece of that baby’s dick
Idunno man, I gotta side with the millenia old shaman, he assures me that God wants my son’s dick hacked up
And what happens if you are, as a random example, a desert tribe with scarce resources?
If you’re a desert tribe with scarce resources, maybe don’t be performing unnecessary surgical procedures on infants? Just a thought
As a general rule, I don’t presume to tell people living under wildly different and much harsher circumstances that I know better survival methods than they do.
Well, I might recommend they use some of their scarce water supplies and soap instead of spit for this particular example, but other than that.
What a dumb thing to say. I am more than comfortable telling people living under wildly different and much harsher circumstances that cutting their babies dicks is not conducive to a thriving society. It turns out people with foreskins drink and eat just as much as those without, and they have the added benefit of never dying from their penis getting infected because someone really wanted to cut part of it off.
Well, glad to see Lemmy kept the community of Reddit experts.
And what percentage of modern circumcised people does that apply to?
Give it another thirty years and we’ll see!
deleted by creator
It’s not that it doesn’t have any benefits, but also doesn’t offset the downsides but seems easier to keep proper hygene as I’ve heard horrible stories like guys who were never taught proper hygene.
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision
Fingernails cause problems too. Let’s rip those off at birth.
Let’s also take off the auricle, the outer part of the ear. If people aren’t taught how to properly clean behind it, it can get dirty.
Read back, like I said several times I don’t support circumcision. However, there are benefits that don’t just disappear because of the cons. Everything has pros and cons that should be accounted for.
And the fact of bringing unrelated debate into it just makes it look unorganized and unfounded basis. But you can message me if you want to debate about finger nails and removing parts of the ear…
I think we’re all on the same side here but I think that person’s analogy is valuable because it demonstrates the disconnect in logic between the perceived value of the “health risks” that are being avoided versus the risks, harm, and morals of permanently modifying someone’s body against their will under false pretenses.
And an infinitely increased risk of a baby getting an infection and dying from having a piece of their body cut off, yay!
I mean, like I said I nearly died and don’t support it. Although, there are benefits and chance of infection is very low at least in a 1st world country. There are many other things with higher chance that could impact a child, like the high chance of foreskin infection.
And I guess its a common problem, go figure people and kids especially don’t practice proper hygene.
https://www.londonchildrensurgery.co.uk/balanitis.php
Having had that, it’s extremely mild, a tiny bit of discomfort for a couple days. Not worth removing the foreskin for. We don’t cut off people’s ears because kids often get ear infections.
And that’s your experience and opinion. The article states that 5% have more than mild cases, and some should be medically removed for medical reasons.
Everything has pros and cons, but I’m not making the choice for anyone else. That’s their choice, but it should still be a choice.
And I don’t see how cutting off an ear would reduce ear infections, as it’s typically the canal that’s infected, not the ear. A lot more involved, and I can’t find any benefits like I could for circumcision. Although, you could be onto something as I’m sure there is data for piecing infections? Is this the reason for changing topic?
I’ve purely stated facts with supported links and haven’t seen the same. Constructive discussion is great but that has yet to be seen yet. So I’m probaby gonna move along with my day and hope you have a great day as well.
The point is removing body parts before they get infected, because there is a small chance they’ll get infected is idiotic. There’s plenty of downsides to being circumcised, like caratanized glans, leading to reduced sensitivity, and difficulty finishing. Not to mention the many times too much skin is taken off, which can make all erections for said dicks owner very painful.
And a choice, sure, for adults, who’ve lived with their foreskins and understand what they are losing, not babies or young children who’re not at an age to understand what’s being taken away.
As for the ear, not having an outer ear would make it easier to clean the ear canal, and for wax to drip out, so it would reduce canal infections. But we don;t do that, because it’s better to just treat the few infections, than to remove someone’s organs as a baby.
Terrible analogy, the outer part of the ear isn’t what allows the infection to happen.
Lacking an outer ear would allow wax to drop out more easily, and make the canal easier to clean, so it should reduce infections.