| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Why do they call it circumcision instead of male genitalia mutilation? |
| _AdjI_ 11/30/18 7:41:22 PM #215: | Aculo posted... hahaha, ok my bro, why don't you try talking to me when you're not so hot, ok? I'm always hot, babe. This kind of raw sexual magnetism never turns off. LinkPizza posted... If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy. How in the name of magnetic fridge doors does that make any sense at all? Where are you getting the idea that 50-50 is somehow the best case scenario? Or that having a rough 50-50 split makes everybody happy? Or that letting parents choose will get you a 50-50 split (the current rate in the US is around 77%, down from 83% in the 60's)? There's just so much wrong with that post, and nothing about it makes sense. BeerOnTap posted... And completely debunked and dispelled the notion that natural (uncut) men are more prone to penile cancer or other conditions. Actually, I'm inclined to believe the increased cancer rate. It's just that the increase is on the order of 1%, which is coincidentally approximately how much penile tissue gets removed by circumcision. Having less penis to become cancerous means less penis cancer, which is a truly mind-blowing realization. Of course, if you're going to use that logic to justify circumcision, the natural extension of that logic is to justify complete penectomies to reduce the rate even further, so... ... Copied to Clipboard! |
| Topic List | Page List: 1 |