This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

NJS's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by NJS

For Veronique:

You have it the wrong way around I believe - being uncurmcised means the glans is protected from day-to-day wear and tear which means once it exposed its more sensitive.

The "gunk" you mentioned isn't a problem - uncircumcised men soon learn that cleaning is required - can you imagine many men being "shy" about experimenting with the apparatus :)

I would also assume that masturbation is easier with the use of the forsesking than without - but of course thats a sin :)

On a serious note I find it abhorrent that any kind of mutilation is excused on religios grounds. As someone else said imagine other body parts being shed - I think just because male cirmcusion "seems" to be harmless shouldn't excuse the principle. The other danger is that acceptance of the male version discourages criticism of the infinitely more abhorrent female version.

This goes back to Dawkins views on any kind of religious influence on children - at a basic level its simply wrong.

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:44:00 UTC | #29974