01-19-2016, 11:27 AM
(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: There are glaring differences between the two...for men it was about cleanliness, stopping spread of disease.
Does not affect pleasure.
There are differences. However, the whole cleanliness and stopping the spread of disease isn't so much of an issue if you just engage in good personal hygiene.
(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: For women...they are not allowed to feel pleasure during sex...zero benefits.
Indeed, it is primarily a social and religious thing. Much like male circumcision started off as.
(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: For men, although painful, done as an infant. I don't remember mine. No long term health issues from being circumcised.
True that most don't remember, still a traumatic experience. Also, no long term health issues? Tell that to those where the knife slipped.
(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: For women, done as children or pre-teen. Extremely painful. Women suffer long term health issues as a result.
Indeed, and at a much higher rate.
(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: Far more deaths from female circumcision than male.
Won't argue against that.
(01-19-2016, 11:15 AM)Vlad Wrote: I am glad I am circumcised because I know women who wouldn't touch an uncircumcised dick.
You know some very shallow women.
As to the OP in general, in the western, developed world there is no real justifiable reason for male circumcision beyond the social/religious aspect. Personally, if I ever have children and I have boys, I'm not going to have them circumcised. Instead, I will teach them to clean themselves and not be lazy about their hygiene. Just my two cents.
