(June 11, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Aegon Wrote: These comments make me feel like I should have some vendetta against my parents for citcumcising me but I really couldn't care less. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
There was a study done in 2015 where uncircumcised men voluntarily were circumcised to test the difference when it comes to sex. The study basically said that there was little to no difference. Add on to that the fact that infections and disease are easier to catch when you're uncircumcised.....I don't know, I don't think it's this terrible barbaric practice everyone is describing.
I get why you'd oppose it, since the infant has no say. But being circumcised or not....it's really not a huge deal
Which study are you talking about? Please provide a link. (If you are talking about the canadian study which concluded "circumcision might not make much of a difference in sensitivity", then it was done on a handful of participants who were intact and were tested for pain, burning and such and were just recorded it they felt it. If you read the actual report and the original comments you'll see how misleading of a study it is.)
The study below with a sample size of around 1000 concluded it does make a difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102
Aside from that there are hundreds of accounts on youtube and other forums where men who had opted for circumcision after experiencing uncircumcised sex are regretting it and looking for ways to restore their foreskin.
Most people are ok with it because it was done to them as babies and they never got to experience the difference for themselves, moreover, it was drilled into their heads from the start that it was the right thing to do as everyone else around them was doing it too.
Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
- Lau Tzu
Join me on atheistforums Slack (pester tibs via pm if you need invite)