Rethinking Circumcision

    Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

    • Rethinking Circumcision

      Chapin contends that “the intact penis is easily cleaned throughout a boy’s and man’s lifetime” and that “circumcision does not prevent STDs, including HIV.”
      :thumbup:


      “there is no justification to perform invasive, medically unnecessary surgery that removes a natural and valuable part of a boy’s sexual anatomy—the foreskin.”
      :thumbup: (girl's natürlich auch nicht)

      westchestermagazine.com/Wellne…/Rethinking-Circumcision/
      There is no skin like foreskin

    • Rethinking Circumcision Nr. 2:


      Reducing sexual pleasure. Historically, up until the sexual revolution, circumcision was promoted by a crowd that was opposed to sexual pleasure. But the act of love is supposed to be pleasurable. Intentionally debilitating another’s body, against their will, is the epitome of paternalism and authoritarianism. I say, go ahead and deny yourself of pleasure, if you choose to. Please don’t impose your deprivation mindset onto other, helpless people

      Charlie Danaher schrieb:

      Let’s quit living in fear. Much of the argument for performing circumcision is conveyed to parents as a threat. In that, if you don’t have your son cut, this or that might happen. But what’s rarely discussed is, if the circumcision takes place, what will happen. If we become more informed, we’re likely to make rational decisions, and not ones based in fear and coercion.
      There is no skin like foreskin