I suspect that life in a desert environment (previous to any Jesus myth), where water to wash oneself was rare, it is not impossible that circumcised babies were lower maintenance. Maybe such an observation became a moral, which got written up. Homo sapiens have not evolved for desert environments, we are temperate creatures, who can only successfully survive other climes through great modification of self or said environment. Once removed from the sub optimal environment, there is simply no justification to continue this barbaric practice.
Absent some myth-based reason to avoid touching the genitals, I doubt that having a foreskin is a liability in any climate. Sterile urine exiting the body flushes any space within the foreskin to a hygenic (health-inducing) state. For easily retractable intact adults to benefit from this flush, they may need to grip the skin tube during urination to cause some back pressure. IF a) your myth says it's taboo to contact bodily fluids, and b) you're in a desert with no wash water, THEN hygiene for adults may be easier with no foreskin and died out mucosal surfaces.
Quite possible indeed. Multiple causes surely coexisted.
Under no circumstances should we ever compare the practice of female genital mutilation to the male circumcision of boys. While I agree that in western countries it is not commonly required for medical and hygienic purposes, it serves many functions in reducing both sexually transmitted diseases and infections and the practice is not done solely for religious purposes. In addition, male circumcision does not reduce the sexual function of the male and reduces minimal pleasure compared to the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation which serves absolutely zero function.
Let's not compare oranges with apples. It makes one appear blatantly ignorant, uneducated, or an Islamic apologist by trying to compare acts which have no moral equivalency with one another.
You overlook that studies have found female genital mutilation correlates with reduced HIV incidence.
You overlook that the most common form of FGM is non-amputating slitting of the prepuce, which is categorically less destructive than male prepuce amputation.
You overlook that 94% of the world's females live under laws (though rarely enforced) forbidding even a pin-poke to draw one ceremonial drop of blood, with no religious exemption.
I think the comparisons are quite constructive to the debate.
"Under no circumstances should we ever compare the practice of female genital mutilation to the male circumcision of boys."
It is useful to compare the two as there is a massive amount of ignorance attached to the subject of male circumcision. Where it is easy for people to judge FGM (female genital mutilation) as a "bad" practice that infringes on people's rights, it can sometimes be difficult for people to apply the same standard to male circumcision.
"it serves many functions in reducing both sexually transmitted diseases and infections"
So if it was shown that removing breasts from infants would diminish the chance of breast cancer we would start chopping of baby breasts? Just because something could potentially be an issue in the future does not give right to remove a body part. Besides the fact that this is mostly a bogus claim that is not proven by scientific evidence.
Also if STD's and infections are the problem, hygiene and education are the answer, not the preventive removal of the foreskin.
Male circumcision does reduce the sexual function of the male, people that are circumcised might not feel always feel that way, but do they really have something to compare it too? Removing a part of the penis that has a huge number of nerve endings does have an effect on how a male experiences sex.
Circumcision is a touchy subject, not a lot of men would be happy to admit that their body has been mutilated by the people that should've protected them from harm. Even more so, that this mutilation was done for the wrong reasons is also something that can be difficult to stomach.
Some sexual facts about being circumcised:
- Male circumcision removes a part of the body that contains a lot of nerve endings and removing this part does have an effect on how a circumcised male experiences sex.
- Removing the foreskin removes the flap of skin that normally protects the head of the penis, a circumcised male tends to have less feeling in his genitalia then compared to an intact male.
- The foreskin acts as a "cock-ring" during intercourse, ribbed for her pleasure, so to speak.
Ergo, male circumcision does adversely affect the way in which a male experiences sex.
We do not remove any other body part as a preventive measure (AFAIK) to prevent against an infection, we do not remove the appendix or tonsils as a preventive measure against infection, so why do we do it with the foreskin?
Does anybody realize how silly this looks when you look at this from a culture where this is not routine practice?
In addition, I think it is a sign of ethical laziness (to not say racism) to constantly try to fix others' cultures instead of focusing on fixing our own. If our culture is successful, other cultures will follow, if they so desire.
^^ Removing the foreskin removes the flap of skin that normally protects the head of the penis, ^^
The word "flap" makes me mental. We need to come up with an elegant way of saying this part, while calling it a sleeve. And it's not that it "covers" like a banana peel covers the edible part. It CAN cover but it can also roll back when manipulated, which feels REALLY good.
hehe, yeah I can imagine it would infuriate you, it's not a useful word ... I feel that way when people speak of a 'membranes' covering the vagina's entrance, arrgggh!
The word "flap" makes me mental.
Well, I could call it a sleeve, I suppose. I'm not familiar with the medical/technical term, as the matter of circumcision doesn't usually come up in conversations as the vast majority of men that I know are intact.
I know, I know, it sounds odd that in some countries people don't actually cut off bits of baby penises but it's the truth.
My opinion is it might be because of simple vanity and it's what people are use to. Circumcision gives that look people are use to thinking of when they envision a penis. As a female I really was marketed to "this is what a penis should look like". Now that I'm older and have had my own children, I find the idea totally stupid and could never imagine allowing that to be done to my own child.
Female circumcison I find insane. As a female I'd really hate my parents for denying me an enjoyable sex life. I'm pretty sure circumcision affects males ability to hold off on ejaculation, so in effect it could also be denying males an enjoyable sex life. That says a lot about consent and why it is done at such a young age, if your 20 year old cousin decided to have it done, he or she would not be telling you it's great and that would pretty much end the procedure right there I'd say.
While not looking for volunteers- Im curious about the different feel of circumcised men and not circumcised men. Would any female be willing to explain the experience? Private response is fine.