easymo:Hahah, silly Muslims and Jews with their barbaric dick chopping ceremonies
Now that you mention it, it is barbaric. There is no evidence that foreskin is a health risk at all. Soap and water work just as well. Mother Nature does no program health risks into organism. Children have died (anastasia ) having this operation done.
As well as half of the americans.
Did someone really die from local anesthesia applied to the unbroken surface of the skin? It's the same kind of novocaine cream that the dentist applies to the gum before he uses a needle to inject real anesthetic.
Many jewish circumcisions are performed without even local anesthesia - no real need for it.
Anyway, what's a big deal? Circumcision may well be redundant from medical point of view but is it anywhere as bad as pierceing the ears, chemical treatment of the hair, applying cosmetics to the skin - pore blocking, chemicals, etc? How about tanning or exposing your skin to Sun and hard radiation for fasion purposes? What about tight/restrictive clothes? Sounds all pretty barbaric customs to me.
It's a cultural thing.
Thrawn: "Results. - We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. "
From the same page: "However uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices."
But: "This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors." - that just tells you righ away that their study has questionable validity. They admit they did not have a good sample. The people differed not just by having been circumsided but by "ethnic groups" and "social factors". Did they compared circumsised ortodox jews with uncircumsized hispanic bikers?
miko
