View Single Post
Old 11-23-2010, 10:43 AM   #197
Thor
God of Hating Twitter
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Exp:
Default

Mutilated is a silly word for it, pointless and unnecessary risk is much better

From that Cracked article:

Quote:
The practice was popularized in recent times by, no kidding, cereal magnate John Harvey Kellogg. In addition to making breakfast fun, he embarked upon a crusade to eliminate the evil of masturbation through the two-pronged approach of feeding young boys Kellogg's Corn Flakes and chopping parts of their dicks off without anesthetic. Absolutely none of this is made up.


This is the face of a man who hasn't had a single good blowjob in all his life.



Today, the pro-circumcision camp says the procedure can lower the risk of things like penile cancer and decrease the chances of getting HIV, but on the other hand, you have rare-but-documented botched procedures that can result in death, or even worse, loss of the penis.
But overall, despite the popularity of the procedure, there isn't a single medical authority anywhere that will recommend it. Not because of any overwhelming negative side effects, but simply because it's a completely pointless medical procedure that just kind of caught on, like skintight jeans. It's medically comparable to removing a male baby's nipples at birth -- sure, they're useless, but all things considered, why add expense and/or risk if you don't have to?
__________________
Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Thor is offline   Reply With Quote