Why do baby males aged around a few weeks should cut their p***s?

Question

serious question

I want serious answers only please.

thanks in advance

Answer 1

They shouldn't, it's a bullshit practice that severely limits they're sexual experience. It will only protect against infection as an infant and only if they parents are too lazy to keep it clean. Not a good excuse to take away something so valuable without any sort of consent as far as I'm concerned.

Answer 2

its called circumsision and its usually something to do with religion or something the family decides to do, i think its also got something to do with making the p***s easier to clean.... im being serious i read this in my lil sis's book about growing up(puberty)...its wierd it was in a girls book...

hope i helped

<3 Lexxi

Answer 3

Male circumcision is male genital mutilation.

Female circumcision is female genital mutilation.

They are both equally mutilation and damage the genitals, sexual sensitivity and sexual ability.    They both permanently scar the genitals.

Female circumcision of minors is strictly illegal in the USA.   It is even illegal to stick a pin in them.

Males do not have equal protection under the law.    This is sexist.

This is unconstitutiona.

In my opinion, circumcision of male infants is assault, infant sexual abuse, and a violation of the basic human right to a whole and intact body.

They use excuses like, hygiene, disease prevention, and appearance to perpetrate this obscenity on helpless infants.

Female circumcision would be cleaner, eliminating the crevices in the labia and especially the clitoral hood, which is exactly analogous with the male f******n--look in any anatomy book.      Yet you don't see women having it done to them.

Disease prevention?     HIV has a very high rate in the USA, while in Europe, Asia, South America where they don't mutilate their males the rates are much lower.    The HIV epidemic began in Africa, and that's why the rate is higher there.

There are no benefits to circumcision.    The medical profession is all to happy to perform circumcisions on any male they can, as they make money from it and doctors are frequently members of the minority religions that try to impose this practice on others.

Incidentally, recent studies show that normal and intact (uncircumcised) men have a slightly lower rate of STDs than circumcised men.

In essence, infants are circumcised because of lies and propoganda about how "dirty" the f******n is.      Europe, Scandinavia, Asia, South America all leave their males intact, as a rule, and to my knowledge noone there has been killed or died from a f******n.

Thousands have died from circumcision complications.

A f******n is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

Civilized people don't mutilate a baby's genitals.

Answer 4

The little babies can't protest to this barbaric and painful procedure initiated by some ill-advised equally barbaric parents. There is no health or other reason to do this mutilation to a healthy boy.

Answer 5

do you mean get circumcised? Parents of baby boys choose to have that done right after birth not a few weeks. It's a personal choice, I am having a boy and I am going to get him circumcised. You can risk infections later on in life if you don't have one done.

Answer 6

They shouldn't, it is not cleaner nor better for the prevention of disease (though many advocates of Islam and Judaism and even some Christians feel that it is), it does not make the man "last longer," and personally I am not sure that it makes it more aesthetically pleasing.  Mostly nowadays it is for religious reasons, Muslims and Jews still practise this as part of their religious rites.

Answer 7

i have 2 answers the first is its a biblical thing, and the other to prevent infection

Answer 8

Tradition, cleanliness, etc.

However, judging from the number of posts in this section lately about f******n restoration, apparently many grown men are not happy they were circumcised.

Most American women are turned off by uncircumcised guys.."ant eaters".