217
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
217 points (99.5% liked)
World News
1750 readers
522 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There is zero biological reason to remove foreskin. It's objectively mutilation.
I'm circumsized. I did not give anyone permission to remove a part of my penis that was perfectly healthy when I was an infant and could not consent. I want you to quantify to me how I was not done wrong, and how my bodily autonomy was not violated. I understand that isn't the case in the article, but it's the perfect example for you to argue.
Also, just because a culture or religion does something doesn't mean I have to support it, and it definitely doesn't make me a bigot to oppose it. Iran will stone women to death under Sharia Law. Am I a bigot for saying stoning women is bad?
It almost completely prevents balanitis in young boys, and has long term benefits in preventing other types of infections later in life. And that's on top of the fact that it's simply easier to keep clean, in general.
Equating that to stoning a woman under Sharia Law, is absurd and intellectually dishonest. Which is why making those types of comparisons is a form of bigotry. You are making ridiculous generalizations in order to denigrate other people.
'Easier to keep clean'.
So what other body modification should we do to infants to make them cleaner?
They're always going on about cleaning in and behind the ears. Let's be honest here. Ears are pretty ugly and you don't need them to hear. You can prevent so many infections because cutting off the ear makes it easier to clean the ear canal.
infant Earectomy infection study
It's a jokeWell then, ears it is!