Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn’t have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.

  • FlyForABeeGuy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    9 months ago

    Nah mate. They had to remove mine because is overgrew my gland and was so tight that I would have pee between the foreskin and the gland layong around, and it was impossible to unhook. The alternative would have been to cut it open and have dumbo’s ear flapping everytime I’d take my dick out. No partner ever complained, and I don’t give à shit about it.

    I wouldn’t circumsize a kid if it wasn’t necessary, but when an operation takes place specifically for medical reasons, it’s because there is no other solution. Like when a foot id so gangrenous that you have to remove it or it will propagate the necrosis to the leg.

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Are you trolling? Or just finding it very difficult to understand what you are replying to? I’m genuinely asking here.

      “Nah mate”, to someone saying it has to be a medical necessity… Following it up with “it was a medical necessity in my case”, and then arguing the same point of it needing to be a medical necessity… It’s just a bit too on-the-nose, that it seems more likely to be intentional, than just… Well, what it looks like

    • spirinolas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Being necessary for medical reasons is a good reason. Doing it because “it gets dirty” and “it looks better” is not. Unfortunately the latter is the most common reason.