Unlike what Hitchens (who i otherwise love) said, there is no conclusive evidence to show that the reason that ancient people made circumcision a practice did so because they did not want their children to have pleasure when having sex.
Genital mutilation in girls, a horrible, barbarous practice, is done because women were (and often still are) seen as "inferior" and as "mothers".
But it has been proven that circumcision in men DOES provide some health benefits. Yes, risks too, but there are some benefits nonetheless.
When the Bible bans shellfish, it does so because some primitive people ate shellfish and got sick. Not because those who wrote it wanted their children to not experience the pleasure of eating shellfish.
In my eyes, the people who made circumcision a practice likely did so because they thought it would make the penis cleaner, and as such it would make it more protected against ailments, and this is a reasonable idea.
Not everything is all black or all white...
Genital mutilation in girls, a horrible, barbarous practice, is done because women were (and often still are) seen as "inferior" and as "mothers".
But it has been proven that circumcision in men DOES provide some health benefits. Yes, risks too, but there are some benefits nonetheless.
When the Bible bans shellfish, it does so because some primitive people ate shellfish and got sick. Not because those who wrote it wanted their children to not experience the pleasure of eating shellfish.
In my eyes, the people who made circumcision a practice likely did so because they thought it would make the penis cleaner, and as such it would make it more protected against ailments, and this is a reasonable idea.
Not everything is all black or all white...
