Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie89
Good news. I think circumcision itself is fine if somebody chooses to have it done and it certainly can have health benefits (such as with HIV rates for example) so it's not really in the same league as FGM, but I'm strongly against it being done to babies, I think that aspect of it is barbaric, it's enforced mutilation, and even though there are benefits it still isn't necessary.
My cousin had her daughters ears pierced around 1 or 2 and I was really shocked, but I was more shocked that noone else in my family seemed shocked by it at all. I was the odd one for being surprised by it  I mean it's not dangerous or anything but I'd never been aware of people doing that to babies so it just seemed completely bizarre to me. I had some piercings done as a teenager and I'm pretty sure I had to be over 16.
My ex had it done for medical reasons and aside from the pain from the operation, it was definitely different for him afterwards. Reaching orgasm was more difficult at first because he found he had to do certain things a bit differently. It wasn't worse though, just different, and something he got used to. |
Dare i ask what your ex had to do or is this conversation getting too explicit??
Yeah i've never understood why or how babies getting their ears pierced has been acceptable
, plus how does the baby stay still and not cry their eyes out . I think it's better when they're grown up like 14 atleast to make their own decision to have it done .
How does it really make much difference though with HIV rates ??
, surely no matter if you're circumcised or not if you're careless with your sexual partners then you're still risking yourself ?
.